Youtube comments of Ralph Bernhard (@ralphbernhard1757).
-
3000
-
2700
-
2600
-
1400
-
1200
-
970
-
847
-
587
-
584
-
563
-
489
-
444
-
439
-
435
-
434
-
427
-
“The dumbing down (of America is evident in the slow decay of substantive content, a kind of celebration of ignorance.”
— Carl Sagan
He had a foreboding of America of the future. While he was alive, he witnessed how manufacturing jobs were being shifted abroad, and everything became focussed on making as much profit for as few super-rich as possible, and as much for a few as possibly achievable without an outright revolution, while the endless talking and talking and talking carried on and on and on...
In more detail:
“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance.”
Again.
His "foreboding" not only concerned the USA, but this desease of ignorance, indifference, and complacency is rapidly spreading all over the western world. There is no need for anybody here to "pat the own back" and "point at America" while laughing.
400
-
393
-
384
-
380
-
379
-
351
-
336
-
332
-
323
-
304
-
297
-
289
-
272
-
262
-
258
-
254
-
251
-
244
-
243
-
240
-
237
-
233
-
232
-
231
-
228
-
226
-
226
-
220
-
219
-
218
-
215
-
211
-
209
-
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give a weak mind money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
209
-
206
-
206
-
198
-
190
-
188
-
182
-
179
-
178
-
177
-
177
-
175
-
173
-
172
-
170
-
170
-
170
-
169
-
168
-
167
-
"You will own nothing and be happy."
First, they came for the mom and pop stores, but we had Amazon & cie., and did not care.
Then, they came for the farmers, but we did not care for we had Walmart shelves packed to the brim...
Finally, the corporations came for your house, and there was nobody left to speak for you.
How convenient if family-led businesses and farms all over go bankrupt. The corporations can swarm in, get the land cheaply, and feast on the dividends of renting the property back to the original owners.
In the end, you will own nothing, but you won't be happy.
166
-
166
-
165
-
156
-
155
-
154
-
NGOs
I was in Uganda in 1999 and this is what the locals told me about all the NGOs with their spiffy-clean Toyota Landcruisers: That they were trojan horses to "buy" potentially useful people, local academia, local celebrities, politicians, etc., etc., via the pretext of "helping". Rather than being "that arrogant white dude" dismissing the theory outright, I decided to research it and discovered it was (to a massive extent) "true".
Rather than "teaching the locals how to fish", these government/private extensions of the US/EC/EU corporate empire were "fishing for locals" for the empires (USA/EU) to employ as local representatives of power, so the system of exploitation of resources could continue into the next cycle, which was post-Colonial exploitation of Africa, via the newly instated, supported, approved "top tiers"...
Note that this strategy of "fishing for locals" was not reserved for Africa only, since it was used onto Great Britain and continental Europe as well, and it started with the dismantling of the monarchies a century ago, the "princes" of Europe (gatekeepers), and their replacements by "mercenaries" (outsiders/serving outside masters/ serving money-driven aims).
153
-
152
-
150
-
149
-
147
-
146
-
145
-
143
-
142
-
140
-
139
-
136
-
129
-
126
-
126
-
125
-
125
-
119
-
118
-
117
-
116
-
116
-
115
-
113
-
112
-
112
-
111
-
111
-
108
-
107
-
105
-
105
-
104
-
101
-
100
-
99
-
98
-
97
-
96
-
95
-
94
-
94
-
93
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
89
-
87
-
87
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
84
-
84
-
83
-
"You will own nothing and be happy."
First, they came for the mom and pop stores, but we had Amazon & cie., and did not care.
Then, they came for the farmers, but we did not care for we had Walmart shelves packed to the brim...
Finally, the corporations came for your house, and there was nobody left to speak for you.
How convenient if family-led businesses and farms all over go bankrupt. The corporations can swarm in, get the land cheaply, and feast on the dividends of renting the property back to the original owners.
In the end, you will own nothing, but you won't be happy.
83
-
82
-
82
-
79
-
79
-
78
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
72
-
At 16:40 mins
Hastings criticizes the "massive territorial demands" by Germany, yet at the same time, British politicians and diplomats were GRANTING massive territorial claims to countries like Japan, Italy, Greece, and later organisations and nations like the Arabs and Zionists, in order to coerce them to join the war on their side.
Arthur Balfour's opinion about Wilson, Llyod George, and Clemenceau : 'these three, all powerful, all ignorant men, sitting there and carving up continents, with only a child to lead them'
I couldn't agree more.
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt...
71
-
70
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
Do not argue with fools.
Act...
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
54
-
54
-
You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works."
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others.
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same strategies of expansion as they did 500, 200 and 100 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care. As always, the warning voices of the sane halves are ignored, downplayed, "finger pointed" at as "unpatriotic," or as being "in bed with the enemy", and many other forms of equally "rhyming history." It is what they spend billions on every year so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching to the jolly tunes.
The systems and corporations came in droves for SYSTEMIC EXPANSION and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE...
A little piece over here for a little American/NATO base.
A nice little piece over there, of the Nordstream project.
A piece of the Panama Canal.
A tiny sliver of those Ukrainian raw materials.
A nice little chunk of a percentage of political influence.
And ALL of Greenland...
The meddling created by the own proactive divide-and-rule strategy of power then results in effects:
Imperialistic meddling is always a CAUSE to which there will be a resulting EFFECT.
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
Hasan is correct.
Because Americans don't realize that by their efforts to fight fire with fire, they have merely created a firestorm...
Same as their dumb War on Drugs has backfired, creating more and more violence, resulting in more and more refugees, their dumb War on Terrorism has created more war and more terrorism.
That's what haplens if one ignores the root cause of problems, and try to fight the symptoms.
The root cause of the current migration problem? The War on Drugs...it self a result of a domestic drug problem
Fighting the symthoms of a US domestic drug abuse problem in Central America, rather than the USA, is merely expanding the problem.
Fighting the symptoms of terrorism in the ME, is simply going to expand it. And it already is...the ME, now Africa.
The root cause of course, is US meddling in their world, for oil and strategic gain.
Published on
Monday, September 17, 2018 commondreams
The US-Led Global War on Terrorism Has Succeeded... In Creating More Global Terrorism
"In the 17 years since the events of Sept. 11 2001, after which the United States declared a "global war on terror," there has not been a terrorist attack of similar size or magnitude on American soil.
However, according to findings in a new congressionally mandated report by the United States Institute of Peace—authored by members of a federal task force focused on extremism—nations around the world have suffered a five-fold increase in terrorist attacks following the post-9/11 policies unleashed by the U.S. and its allies.
The focus of the report—titled Beyond the Homeland: Protecting America from Extremism in Fragile States—maintains a very U.S.-centric worldview. And while it does little or nothing to critically challenge the widely criticized policies pursued by the Bush, Obama, or Trump presidencies, its tabulation of the dramatic rise in destablized states and growing terrorist violence throughout the regions where the U.S. military has been most active since 2001—namely, the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa—is nonetheless revealing."[end of quote]
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal.
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
The concept of an "occupation" seems to be hard to grasp.
The landgrabs after the 6-Day War were illegal according to international law. Waging a "preventive war" or a "war of choice" was not illegal, but all the subsequent landgrabs were.
According to international law, these territories are therefore still "occupied".
" ...We had three wars which we fought without an alternative. The first, the war of independence, which began on Nov. 30, 1947 and lasted until January 1949 ...The second war of no alternative was the Yom Kippur War and the war of attrition that preceded it ... Our other wars were not without an alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice ... In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation." -- Menachem Begin, Aug. 8, 1982, Israeli National Defense College
Begin stated clearly that Israel had fought three wars before which it had a "choice," meaning Israel started the wars. In legal terms, this is known as "preventive war," which is not illegal. However, taking land against international law after such a war, is illegal. Note that fluffy language like "in the noblest sense of the word," highlighted above, is not a legal term but gangsta talk.
Israel is still the occupying power.
That is what the law states. One can whine about laws, but that doesn't change a law. Everything one can come up with in defense of Israel, will automatically mean apologia for the occupying force. Everything one states, either ignores or apologizes for the stronger side in a conflict, which is enforcing an illegal occupation.
Every conversation which does not stress the fact that one side is the occupier, the other side the resistance, is biased towards imperialism.
Every news report must start with explaining who the occupation power is, so as not to confuse the timeline.
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
This is the theory.
According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules.
According to the concept of "meaning of words" all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory."
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The last time the USA gained big time, was after the USA had played its own still relatively small part in setting up Imperialist Europe for failure 100 years ago, starting around 1900 in small steps, using the divide and rule technique of power and from a position of unassailable geographical favor (the geographical reality can also be stated using other words, such as "competing from advantageous ground"/RAND Report, 2019).
How are American leaders going to get Eurasian states/countries, incl. their own "friends" in the EU, and the rising East Asian part of BRICS, to go "down" again so the good times of "50% wealth for us" (post-WW2 strategy/McKennan) can continue? How can the USA cobtinue to attract and rake in all the runaway talent from everywhere else as these regions are destroyed by crises and war (brain drain), and as these wars are funded by the post-1913 fiat currency dollar hegemony? (see footnote)
How can US leadership avoid having to deal with the OWN divided-and-ruled population when they can no longer be pacified by throwing heaps of luxury into their laps, getting successively disgruntled as the amount of afforded wealth is decreasing yearly, and ever-more unevenly siphoned off within the own system (1% owning 50% of wealth in the USA). How to keep everybody else on the planet "exhausted" and "extended," all the while pretending to be friends?
Note that the current rising anger within the USA is no longer ground on moral inequalities, such as the large uprisings in the 1960s, and 1970s. The current anger on the the streets, is overwhelming carried by a massive inequality within the OWN country, with the mega-rich encroaching on the own small amounts of acquired wealth in ever more outrageous and openly advocated and politically backed corporate steps. These private equity vultures that were once set loose on the entire planet, are now coming "home to roost"...
Obviously, unlike the post-WW2 "good ol' days" there is not enough to pass around anymore, as other nations rise and start demanding a fairer share of the world's resources.
WHAT. ARE. THEY. GOING. TO. DO?
Answer: They are already doing it. Implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power, both abroad as well as over the own people, same as ever since they existed.*
footnote
Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money = "control" the resources. It doesn't need a ton of books to explain what money is. Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money/currency = "control" the resources. There. Did it in twenty seconds 😂
That is the system YOU cheer for as "best that can be done."
"If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu," February 17th 2024, US Secretary of State Blinken. If you don't got the money honey, YOU are going to be eaten, if YOU don't unite with your neighbors, regardless of their class, religious beliefs, race or ethnity, place of birth, language, culture or other easily implemented "divides" such as "lines drawn on a map" which are often politically exploited to the gain of the "top tiers."
Money is a vehicle to allocate resources. It's the physical resources which are limited, and who controls the flow of printable money, controls the flow of resources.
40
-
40
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
Back in the 1990s Tel Aviv was sneakily trying to introduce Apartheid, at the same time South Africa was busy ending it under international pressure. Of course, Israel was (according to imperialist logic) "doing nothing wrong"...
At the time the world was applauding South Africa as it ended Apartheid, and simultaneously the world was applauding Israel's attempt at introducing Apartheid, branding it as just "trying to create peace."
Note, whilst singling out the Palestinians/Arafat as being "unreasonable" and "rejecting the Israeli olive leaf of peace...blah, blah..." as the accepted narrative of the Mainstream Media.
Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, "We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [edit: the historical examples being the "Apartheid dependencies," of the "Bantustan"] ... and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines ... The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term ... Jerusalem (would be) united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty ... will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev. We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth."
All the questionable clauses, eluding reality by use of the typical vague political doublespeak, have been highlighted.
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control. What that would have meant, we see today. Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city. Notice how Rabin, commonly held as a dove in politics, never used the term "full sovereign state" when he referred to this "Palestine", but the term "less than a state." Did you spot the use of [Israel's] "natural growth"? Critical question... Where to? Where would Israelis/Zionists "naturally grow" to, if there were equal neighbors, as a balanced power, which could actually stop any such Zionist settler "growth". The Jordan Valley, extends BOTH sides of the Jordan River. Now, I'm sure that was just another slip-up too, of people who don't understand simple geography. Whatever. It is fairly clear what they wanted, and there are historical examples for this: the "pool of cheap labor" within the own borders, as the concept of the "Bantustan" was for the RSA, given a little bit of "independence" to manage own affairs, but de facto/de jure powerless to stop the CONTROLLING power, intended to be Jerusalem, as Jweish capital city with the right to introduce permit laws, etc. It is literally what RSA did with their "Bantustans". Back then the people could not be fooled. They saw through the deceit, and rightfully called it out for what it was: just another Apartheid ploy to avoid the rise of political equals.
Sad reality? Today masses of fools are being mislead into praising Israel's attempted implementation of Apartheid as an attempt at peace, while at the same time denouncing a similar scheme actually implemented by the RSA in stages after WW2, as being bigoted/racist.
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global "balance of power", to avoid a few million gaining at the expense of billions, as the USA/collective West has done these past 500 years.
I'm sure Chinese and Russian leaders will imnediately agree to this, and our US/collective West will do as they've always done: pretend to wish to "sign up for it" overtly and ostentatiously (doves), but use deception to torpedo such attempts of global equillibrium covertly (hawks).
Good cop, bad cop.
Divide-and-rule.
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
Standard MO for 100 years.
Deny, deny, deny...
IDF Intelligence Service report from June 1948 lists 11 factors which precipitated the exodus, listing them in order of importance as:
a. Direct hostile Jewish operations against Arab settlements. (The Haganah was the army of the Yeshuv, or Jewish community in Palestine, and was the precursor of the Israeli Defense Force, or IDF.)
b. The effect of our hostile operations on nearby Arab settlements (especially the fall of large neighboring centers).
c. Operations of the Jewish dissidents (terrorist organisations like Irgun and the Stern Gang, also known as the Irgun Tzvai Leumi, Lehi, etc.).
d. Jewish whispering operations (psy-ops) aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.
e. Expulsion orders (by Haganah/IDF).
The Israeli Intelligence Service gives an explanation re. the main factors, concluding that “without doubt, hostile (edit: own) operations were the main cause of the movement of the population”.
According to the own analyses, it was a forced expulsion, or ethnic cleansing.
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have come to conclusion that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power).
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
We should never forget that Mearsheimer famously "predicted" the war in the Ukraine, not only because it was clear how the "encirled" REact (Russia), but also because it is clear how the "encirclers" (the "buck passers" USA/EU/NATO) PROact in strategy.
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
@reggieskillman1469 Unfortunately your government does not agree with you...
"Since World War II, during a supposed golden age of peace, the United States military has killed or helped kill some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 84 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. The United States is responsible for the deaths of 5 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and over 1 million just since 2003 in Iraq.
Since 2001, the United States has been systematically destroying a region of the globe, bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, not to mention the Philippines. The United States has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces in three-quarters of them."
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
Usually in debates like in these in the comments sections, it doesn't take long for the emotional argumentation and logical fallacies to set in.
For example, the "...but if we hadn't bombed city centers, how much stronger would Germany have been?"
Easy answer? Not much.
Historians who have studied air warfare in WW2 have already concluded this long ago.
For example Munsen, Kenneth/German Aircraft of WW2 ISBN 623.74'6'0943 p. 13
"It has been estimated that Allied raids between mid-1943 and early-1945 cost the Luftwaffe some 18,000 aircraft in lost production. On the other hand, if these aircraft had been received, shortages of aircrew, fuel, and munitions would have severely limited their effective use."
[End of quote]
It was not as much the bombing which limited German industry, but the lack of resources, especially oil.
Every raid, and every sortie flown in excess of what was really necessary against a few key industries (again, esp. oil targets), was a waste of Allied airmen and a waste of own resources.
Every bomber downed with the intent to kill "Oma Schickelgruber" who was ostensibly "in the way of valid targets", an exposed lie, was a needless waste of own lives.
Every Allied soldier sent to "save Stalin", was equally wasted.
The price for such folly would be paid after the war.
30
-
30
-
Geopolitics links the "Kurdish resistance" to the big picture.
There is a fracture zone between the big global players (USA/EU, Russia, China) running from the North Pole, through the Baltic States, Poland and Ukraine, via the Caucasus, Iran, and towards Israel. Another fracture zone is the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa (incl. Israel), from there through India, SE Asia (incl. Vietnam), through Taiwan, the Koreas, Japan, Taiwan, back up to the North Pole.
Expect Washington DC, either in collaboration with a NATO state, or tacidly nodded off by the EU, to instigate crises and wars EVERYWHERE on these "fracture zones," because it is the only way they can hang on the the good ol' days a bit longer: their role of the hegemon of the world, and that of the American Century.
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
OK.
So if you're overweight, and have a heart attack, pay your own hospital bills..
If you're driving drunk, and have an accident, pay your own hospital bills..
If you have a dangerous hobby, and end up in trouble, pay your own hospital bills..
So if you play too much video games and collapse of exhaustion, pay your own hospital bills.
If you swim in rough seas, and need to be saved, pay your own hospital bills.
If you cycle in traffic and get hit by a car, pay your own hospital bills.
If you overdose on opiods, pay your own hospital bills.
Dangerous slippery slope there.
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
“The dumbing down (of America is evident in the slow decay of substantive content, a kind of celebration of ignorance.”
— Carl Sagan
He had a foreboding of America of the future. While he was alive, he witnessed how manufacturing jobs were being shifted abroad, and everything became focussed on making as much profit for as few super-rich as possible, and as much for a few as possibly achievable without an outright revolution, while the endless talking and talking and talking carried on and on and on...
In more detail:
“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance.”
Again.
His "foreboding" not only concerned the USA, but this desease of ignorance, indifference, and complacency is rapidly spreading all over the western world. There is no need for anybody here to "pat the own back" and "point at America" while laughing.
27
-
27
-
History repeats itself in eternal cycles.
Bismarck's "something silly in the Balkans" has morphed into "something silly in the Ukraine".
Of course, Bismarck's quote is in reference to the age-old "contested sphere of influence", and big power ambitions.
At the time it was the Balkans.
Today it is the Black Sea/Ukraine, or simply "shifted east Balkans"-Bismarkian logic.
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
Of course the Ottoman Empire was not Europe's only "sick man" at the time.
The Ottoman Empire was weak, and therefore a favorite on "the European good guys" with their "shopping lists"-mentality.
Of course, the "always on the right side of history"-good guys have one main goal: "carving up" weakness.
That goal is eternal, always searching for weakness.
Of course in the late 19th-century, the Ottomans weren't the only failing empire, desperately trying to hold together their own past accomplishments (previously gained by a mixture of blood and diplomacy).
There were two others.
Of course Spain was the first weak empire on the American Internationalist's own "no more Monroe Doctrine restrictions"-shopping list of suitable weak empires.
The American Century needed divided "weany libruls" to succeed in their quest.
Easily explained empire 101...
Europe's other "sick man" was Austria-Hungary, and Berlin adamantly refused to throw her to the wolves.
Bad bad Berlin ...the "good guys" had an appetite and came with a vengeance.
Dissed girlfriend Russia of course intented to encircle Austria-Hungary, using the "poor people"-argument (aka "Pan Slavism").
And in the respect of "losing favored status" in the good guys' with their eternal games of divide and rule (favoratism):
Russia today.
Not such fun getting encroached upon, as Russia once did to "sick man" Austria-Hungary, and having own security issues ignored by the eternal good guys, right?
Not so great having historical spheres of influence carved up by "ICEBREAKER NATO" paving the way to new profitable EU/PNAC markets, eh?
Shouting "poor me" in "the game" of default good guys/default bad guys, when own interests to dominate and rule over others, using human lives as "tools" not working out anymore?
Why don't your leaders roll out the old "protector of all slavs"-trope again, hmmmm?
Suddenly "Russian power" as a "tool" don't suite the "good guys" anymore, and the own Moscow interests ("security issues": remember that term for a while) get thrown out the back door.
Not so much fun anymore when you are "in the shoes" of others, right?
What happened to those eternal dreams of access to the Med for your navy and the own projection of power (Mahan)? Today Russia doesn't even fully control the Black Sea anymore, and St Petersburg/Moscow geostategic goals/aims have been thrown back over the last 30 years, step by step, back 200 years to the 18th century when it all started.
Not such fun if one isn't on the "default good guy list" anymore...
Today, Moscow's dream of "top down influence in Turkey" (Erdogan/Turkish state access to the Med, janking Turkey out of NATO) is being countered by western economical warfare on the Turkish state. Watch on while the next bloody "bottom up" orange revolution is being set up by "the good guys" with the cash, creating the next "poor people"-argument for the primed/conditioned masses back home in front of their TVs...impervious in regards to "what happened". They just want the feelgood story, so too bad...
Back to "good ol' days" when Imperialist Russia was still "best fwiends":
Of course during the "good ol' days" of "friendly entente Russia", St. Petersburg/Russia could appease Belgrade in their quest of destabilising their neighboring state (Austria-Hungary) in their violent nationalist quest for Nacertanije and carving up Austria-Hungary. St Petersburg could try to misuse known Serb ambitions for Greater Serbia (openly known since 1906) for the own goal of destabilising the Balkans for own geopolitical goals (access to the Med via the Dardanelles), as the "entente good guys" turned a blind eye. Being a "good guy" herself, Russia could set out to misuse Serbs as a "human wall" in lieu of overly obvious direct state influence, to stop a potential alliance between Berlin and the Ottoman Empire becoming viable. The "usefull tool" aka "Entente partner" St Petersburg had the tacid permission and could appease Belgrade and convert the previous Austrian-Hungarian sphere of influence (Serbia) into a "tool" to create a security issue for Austria-Hungary (potential two-front war danger for Vienna/Budapest).
Note how the "good guys" create "poor people"-arguments directed at Moscow today, the same way that the predecessor St. Petersburg created "poor people"-arguments against the object of their desire...Austria-Hungary.
The "regular run" of history is of course that "poor slavs" trapped in an Imperialist Russia (conquered, brutalized and oppressed) is perfectly OK, but Serbs trapped in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire just screams for a "historical adjustment". Go figure...
Anyway.
What happened to these "party times" when the good guys told you you could do no harm?
Doesn't everybody just love becoming encroached upon and encircled?
Let's ask Russians today how they feel about "encroachment/encirclement".
Not so nice, eh?
(Google "hypocrisy")
The same "security issues" St Petersburg once created for Austria-Hungary, suddenly don't sound so "cool" anymore, when the shoe is on the other foot.
Biblical history (and 2,000-year old observations re. human nature), unfolding again, right in front of our eyes.
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
In 1914, Wilhelm II the Superimperialist set out to bring the British Empire to its knees and rule the world.
Of course, everybody knows this was the focus of his entire existence...his sole purpose in life.
Evidence? The famous "September Program" as his crowning achievement in finally getting on with "bringing the British Empire to its knees" which Wilhelm II the Superimperialist suitably commented on and concluded with a speech on the 3rd September ending thus : “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory...”
The crowning achievement of his entire existence and rule of course, as everybody knows, was to finally "bring the British Empire to its knees". Everybody knows Wilhelm II obsessed and fused about the powerful British Empire from the minute he woke up every morning, until the time he fell asleep every night.
Only...
...the speech...
...was not by Wilhelm II, and the date was not 1914.
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt.
On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
After both World Wars, the crowds understandably cheered the end of the war...
Meanwhile as the crowds cheered, in the background, big daddy USA ate up the British Empire and turned it into the junior associate power.
Where are all the BBC documentaries informing the public about these postwar events?
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
The reason to get as far away from a sinking ship, is not only to 'get away from the propellers', as mentioned here.
A sinking ships is an unpredictable mass, which behavior cannot be predicted. Any small piece breaking or falling off the heeling ship, could fall on your head and knock you unconscious. When ships sink, pieces often break off.
The chances of being smashed by the chimney stack breaking off, or by another crew member jumping on top of you, or a loose piece of cargo falling down, or by the ship keeling over and being smashed by the superstructure, etc., is much larger than 'being sucked down', as is often mentioned in movies or docs.
25
-
25
-
25
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
Yes, 100% correct.
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Africa and the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in Africa and the ME) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Four corners of the globe. These globalists play the same game. Divide and rule.
25
-
25
-
It was self-serving.
Had the USA done nothing, and let Europe rot, it would have created an enormous sympathy for communism.
Portraying this "aid" which kept Western Europe in the US sphere of influence as some kind of act of benevolence, is disingenious.
PART II
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
-----------------------------------
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
§§§footnote
If you wish to know more about exactly how the British Empire was "being dismantled," the comments section below the "His-tory R00m Cha,nel" and "Kaiser Wilhelm ... documentary" is comprehensive, with regards to the technique used by Washington DC.
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
Snyder is just another ideologue.
Trying to fall back onto the "right/wrong" angle of analysis, as most historians do, already confirms that it is not an analysis, but a feeling/emotion, generated by the amygdala, or the "filter for emotions," meaning that a scientific analysis of the propagated (his)story already reveals a key flaw in the statements. The key flaw is this: People have "feelings" for large ingroups like empires, which are not based on analysis per scientific method.
Because of the way the brain works, people store romantic images of ingroups and political entities (like "nations", "countries" or "empires") and systems they hold dear, like capitalism, which are in no way plausibly based on a scientific analysis of facts. An analysis of facts reveals that the blind spot bias is a form a tribalism.
In conclusion, when asked to "rate" (a word with a definition) their own favourite ingroups/entities/systems/heroes, human beings use heuristics (aka mental shortcuts), and their own deeply-engrained biases, because the average brain cannot handle the millions of bits of data necessary to draw correct conclusions. A typical brain shards information, like a computer, into smaller compartments (creating sub-theories), but doesn't link these various micro-analyses (sub-theories) correctly because of deeply-engrained biases and fallacies in reasoning.
Because the own standpoints are already biases and deeply-flawed, humans are quickly triggered into knee-jerk reactions, generated by the "fight or flight"-programming of the brain. When one is a member of such ingroups, one's brain is pre-disposed to consider the flawed/immoral standpoints of the own "side" as being more valid than the more correct/moral standpoints of the "outgroup" and finger-pointing sets in. Most people are already so deep down the "rabbit hole" themselves, that they cannot see out. They then reveal the "hole" they are stuck in, with the words they use.
One of the easiest "fight/flight"-instincts is to scream "Your biased!?!!" (finger pointing) very loudly, even though the own standpoint of the offended individual is already biased towards the own ingroup, as the default setting, meaning that the initial emotion/allegation cannot be substantiated by any logical/reasonable explanation, and therefore remains a "feeling". In other words, the own standpoint, theory, hypothesis, opinion, or analysis is already so biased that it is flawed, but it is still the benchmark by which other standpoints or theories are judged.
The apologists cannot substantiate why they feel that somebody else's theories/analyses are (quote) "biased." Why not? Because these are overwhelmingly emotions (pathos), based on own feelings. Historical analyses of human thinking processes have already concluded that individual emotions overwhelmingly cannot be trumped by scientific analyses (logos/ethos) by most human beings. It needs a stronger emotion, to trump another emotion. This basic flaw in reasoning by human beings is then used/misused by the "tops of the pyramids" of power who steer people against each other, by means of emotional appeals. The ruler class, has already known all of this for thousands of years (aka manipulation). They already know and use it to their own advantage, to keep the pyramids of top-down POWER, pyramidal in shape. Individuals who believe in their "rights" to make claims they cannot personally substantiate, are the easiest to deceive by their own top tiers...
The short version of the above, is that individuals are more likely to "like" something they are born into, and support it, or to express adoration for a system which is close to them. At some or other tier, almost every individual is connected to the system/entity closest to them. Some even proudly proclaim their "rights" to be biased, and these then constitute the easiest to manipulate and steer as tools. These individuals love the systems they were born into, and if they can be made to hate others, they are perfect little tools, or to quote Kissinger "dumb stupid animals" who can be steered against others. Note, not "all" (a defined term) are prone to such deceit. If the reader does not belong to such individuals, this logic/reasoning is of course not meant for you (individual). Unfortunately, we live in a world of thin-skinned easily triggered snowflakes, who always think everything is a personal attack.
_The entire above logic, is the basis for the logic/reasoning to always keep a just balance of powers between systems, on all tiers, to avoid one system from overpowering another.
Just remember that if one considers "might makes right" (imperialism) as fair, it also means that one is going to lose own "rights" as soon as the next "might" comes along, and your own leaders haven't established a fair globally-valid system based on mutually beneficial laws and cooperation yet.
In case your intellect has been roused then this essay is substantiated by scientific research, which can be proven by searching a few key words.
rgds
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
The time is approaching.
For 50 years after 1945 the citizens of the USA have lived the "good life" at the expense of the rest of the world in the immediate post-WW2 years, when the rest of the planet was so weak it could not avoid US institutions/military/NGOs from imposing themselves, and vacuuming off enormous gain from a position of unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL invincibility...
Now, that ratio is down to 30% of the world's wealth.
It's decreasing...
What does the USA look like today? What will it look like when this amount of wealth of the world they can vacuum off, decreases to 20%, and then 10%? When US citizens finally get closer to a "fair share" of the world's resources/wealth, and have to make do with the same amounts as everybody else, they will finally find out what level of psychopathy they have systemically enabled inside, operating from within their OWN country/state. When they can no longer vacuum off the wealth of the world, in an unfair manner (50% for us, the 6% of the planet), they will start finding out what human nature is like.
When the current 4% of the planet, have to make do with 4-5% of the world's wealth and resources as other nations come and take a fairer share of these resources for themselves, the USA will become everything they have always criticized, and finally discover they are just like everybody else.
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
Ruth Bader-Ginsburg: "To Those Accustomed to Privilege Equality feels like Oppression".
In the coming years, Americans are going to start feel soooooo "oppressed" by the 95% of the planet, who somehow had to manage with the other 50% of the wealth/resources for the fifty or sixty years after World War II.
America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this desirable disparity continues.
Set up "patterns" of European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
CONTROL the access to its own POWER.
Keep others either "down" or "out" per "rulings".
No, that isn't a "conspiracy theory".
It is "divide and rule", in different contexts, on different tiers, and in different eras of history.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
CONTROL the resources, which are the limiting factor (NOT "money" which is simply a "means" to divide)
Find volunteers and local ambitious rulers who collaborate, who "dance for money", and the sky is the limit for the dividers...
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) as the template.
The strategy to avoid unity in Eurasia, or to avoid "avoid war" (note: double negative), has been the same for the past 200 years...
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
"When two neighbouring countries fight each other, just know the USA visited one." - Nelson Mandela (Region: Southern Africa/Big picture timestamp: Cold War).
The statement is not quite correct.
When two neighbours fight each other, just know that an empire has been there previously.
It's the old joke that "If two fish are fighting, the British Empire has been there."
It is a truism about imperialism in general, and how divide-and-rule works.
Set up neighbours against each other, using a variety of ever-consistent techniques and strategies. With absolute certainty, the tribal leaders of Europe joked the same way about the Roman Empire, openly flaunting their "Pax Romana" whilst in the background covertly favoring one "neighbor", whilst setting them up against the others, using whatever reasoning it wanted.
Outsiders will come to a state (also covertly politically or via NGOs as the strategy of "cultural- and political capture"), and these outsiders try to lay down the foundation for division by setting up the "new-found friend" against its neighbours and if it is unsuccessful in one "state" (status quo), it will simply go to the neighbours and try the same. The more neighbours, the more chances of a successful division of powers, which is beneficial to the "divider". Because if these neighbours all end up fighting, the "divider" vacuums off gains (of various kinds) in the background. Such implemented and leveraged divisions do not necessarily stem from evil intent, since most of the participants in a divide-and-rule strategy have absolutely no idea that they have become "actors" in a great game, the scope of which they remain ignorant of. Even those with good intentions (political doves) can create division.
No amount of agreements, accords, negotiation or skills will ever stop the "dividers", for nothing they sign will stop their divisive ways.
The oil-rich Middle East, MENA-region is a perfect example of the above, which is globally practiced today. The only thing which changed between the Roman Empire and the current times is technology, which vastly shrunk the world and the REACH of the controlling empire.
At the Helsinki Summit in 1992, the participants stated that (quote) "...no state in our CSCE community will strengthen its security at the expense of the security of other states."
Our US/collective Western governments do not care about the spirit of such agreements. Their stated attempt of systemic expansion (aka NATO enlargement) means they do not care how many people suffer consequences which follow as causal effects of such deceptive practices. Look back at their histories filled with unending misinformation and disinformation leading billions of people with only a passing interest in history to draw the wrong conclusions from historical events. In the so-called "Anglosphere" most only know that their grandfathers, their fathers, uncles and cousins fight/fought in wars all over the world, and they must therefore see some sense in it all.
Meanwhile, not a week goes by and some new historical example of deceit is revealed, incl. the use of such "broken promises" (see the current upset in New Zealand, of entire peoples deceived and systemically lied to, and the "divides" such deceit still causes 200 years later).
Closer to home...
Of course there was an alternative to NATO expansion, which set in during the 1990s, as the eastwards march of the empire on its marching route (USA/EU/NATO). A Generalplan Ost for US/collective Western corporations. Step by step, marching orders into an existing status quo, hoping nobody notices...
The alternative should have been to neutralize the territories of the ex-Warsaw Pact states, so that these did not impede the security of any other European state, just as decided roughly the same time in Helsinki. An Intermarium-/Three Seas Initiative of neutral states between the Mediterranean-, Baltic- and Black Seas, friendly to all and a danger to none, could have been forged out of the Cold War, and shaped out of the territories the USSR was withdrawing from.
A historical example of this is the Holy Roman Empire which sectioned off a part of its border regions (Belgium/Luxemburg), as neutral buffer zone after the Napoleonic Wars (1815). This then protected (de jure) Central Europe from attacks by France. It could have been the recipe for eternal peace in Europe, for as long as none of the "sides" tried to encroach/encircle on the other.
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works."
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is hiding behind the mainstream stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others, any which way.
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
Europe is already lost, and it started down the slippery slope following the year 1900. The window for change is closing fast.
In this regard, I'll refer to a recent questionnaire carried out in Kiev, in which the interviewee honestly answered the question what the election of the Trump admin will mean to the Ukraine, with "The Ukraine is e-ffed, and will end like Poland in 1939." This is far from anecdotal, since it is an actual strategy of power to "bleed friends, and gain." Ukraine today = Poland 1939 = "fight to the last Pole" in 1939, and fight to the last Ukrainian soldier today. The way history rhymes, reveals the strategies of power.
That answer is valid for the USAs "friends" (see Kissinger's logic of it being "deadly to be the USAs friend").
The problem is that Europe is filled with weak and sycophantic leaders who make friends with people who tell them exactly what they can expect. For any Eastern European, an eternal NATO as protective shield is quite the speculative assumption as default setting for an argument, seeing that it was only quite recently formed (with regards to the history of Europe). There should therefore be no definite conclusion that it is going to last forever (Lindy's Law). NATO was created in order to surround/encircle the SU after WW2, as the "fist" of European power which was steered by the USA as it rose from the ashes of WW2, and for exactly this purpose. It's function was to ensure US global hegemony and domination, and encircle/encroach on the USSR together with Japan, Formosa/Taiwan, South Korea, etc. (as staging areas) on the other side of Eurasia.
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Only the fact nukes were available saved the planet from a conventional "WW3"-scenario declared out of a local/limited war, and which would have invariably started soon after 1945, and after a short breather filled with limited wars around the fringes. All accompanied by new set of "finger pointing "Who started it?"-rhetorical geniuses who would have been set up against each other, sitting in the trenches of such a "conventional WW3"-scenario. Thank goodness both sides had nukes, so the restraint was systemic and declaring war would have been a MAD act. That was of course in opposite to the logic of both WW1 and WW2, which were declared by the hegemony, from the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER (long war scenario) strategizing how it could win, if only such a declared war remained a "long war scenario" in which others bled for the continued status quo.
What saved the planet after WW2 was over, was that there would be no way to make a nuclear war a "long war scenario."
If one wants to reason and understand "Why WW1/WW2?" That's it. Create a situation which would be unacceptable for oneself (grand strategy of becoming encircled by a pattern of relationships), then impose this exact grand strategy onto the power rising in economic strength, and then wait for the situation to deteriorate, calling out a "world war" at an opportune moment, gathering in all the little "buck catchers" to do most of the fighting and dying, by standing off from the conflict as long as possible, using a GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER. After WW2, NATO was created (first step of escalation), in the self-declared Cold War, which started in 1946 ("Iron Curtain" as first emotional appeal, followed by further step-by-step strategy of escalating reality) because it was useful to the ambitions of Washington DC to become the world's leading power. Read the strategy papers. There was no "hot WW3" after 1945, because that would have been kinda self-defeating for the new global hegemony to declare it, based on some or other local limited war being declared the own "final red line".
Reality: Before 1945, the then global hegemony...
Declared WW1 (out of a series of local limited wars on the continent), to avoid the single hegemony on the continent.
Declared WW2 (out of a series of local limited wars on the continent), to avoid the single hegemony on the continent.
Declared the Cold War, by encircling its main continental European/Eurasian rival. "Declaring" a world war out of that, was not possible, so wars remained "by proxy".
Let's see if the pattern (geopolitics/grand strategy) rhymes again...
NATO can be disbanded or weakened the minute it suites the Pentagon/Washington DC, by simply withdrawing from it by pushing issues until some of the signatories sheer out, dividing its power (divide-and-rule = pull bricks from the wall to weaken it).
After the 1990s NATO became useful as "buck catcher" (John Mearsheimer theory) to be employed against the SU, and it remained a useful "buck catcher" for the hegemony after its purpose actually ended in the 1990s. From the ashes of this disbanded NATO, the next non-nuclear little power/proxy like Poland can then be steered by the hegemony, using its off-continental position of power, as political clout and military power.
If the Pentagon/Washington DC decides to leave NATO, who's going to stop them?
Internally, in US domestic politics, there will be enough finger-pointing fools showing up screaming "Maybe those Euro-weanies should have just paid the 2%?!?"(fingers pointing/blame game). Any politicians dream-come-true scenario in free societies. The writers of history won't even have to work too hard to cover up the strategy. The narrative writes itself. The deception covers itself, by those who never read the strategy papers, creating a slew of "support" which justifies any pre-conceived strategy.
Rule the world, by division.
If one already knows what games are being played, one can take educated guesses about the future, which will be quiet accurate: The weakening of Germany/France, and their economic collapse? Already predicted, because that's what happens if one bases the own POWER on division, and follows the master divider (Washington DC/Pentagon) without questioning. That Europe will collapse because of its weak leadership structures of power, all taking place today as people watch on in surprise? All already predicted, more than 10 years ago. All of these causal effects of own actions (power) and inaction (weakness) have already been discussed by top geostrategists over the past 10 years or so, and available to those who follow these discussions.
What happens if the USA simply adapts/adopts the "Greene Amendment," and simply determines that "NATO is not reliable" (sic.)?
If there's suddenly a lot of pressure from the various and multitude of competing entities of POWER within the USA (lobby groups, strategic think tanks, plus the pressure of the so-called "street" as public opinion) to leave NATO, who in Europe will make them stay? In grand strategy, the off-continental European power can pull the "Uriah move": after Europeans become set up against each other, then withdraw when the flames fan up, then PIVOT TO ASIA and instigate war here, hoping more willing fools will step forward to "catch the buck" here too.
Note, that "The Pivot to Asia" IS already the strategy.
Set up others, then "pivot" somewhere else (grand strategy).
What makes anybody think somebody like a Mr. "America First"(see footnote) Trump cares about an economic rival to the USA's global hegemony, a united and strong Europe?
Note, that similar to the post-WW2 reality which set in after 1945, the last man standing is also a strategy of power.
If everybody fights and weaken themselves, who "wins"?
In order to see the reality today, we must be honest about reality in the past.
------------
Footnote 1:
Wiki: "The Withdrawal Clause; This means that after 20 years since the signing of the treaty which was in 1949, thus 1969, any member state that wishes to leave just has to inform the United States that it wants to leave, and then after a year it formally leaves."
Footnote 2:
The slogan America First was not coined by Trump, since it goes back to Wilson and WW1 and the starting phase of the US global ambitions, signalled to all interested parties by its declaration of war on Spain in 1898. Obviously, the USA joined WW1 for "cold, hard, American interests" and the intent of gain (economically capture the European "friends" through debt, or the debt trap diplomacy through war expenditures, hidden behind appeals to emotions).
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
21
-
21
-
@TheWeedIsland Greater Serbia could never have worked, never mind how it was "labeled".
It was fundamentally flawed because Croats and Slovenians were Catholic and therefore "leaned north" towards Central Europe (aka "sympathies" which means a general striving by a majority of the population. Obviously, there were exceptions)
Serbs, and others were Orthodox, and therefore "leaned East" towards Russia ("sympathies").
No idea why anybody in 1920 ever thought that "Yugoslavia" could have ever worked. Like all "top down" creations, states like these tend to be "unhappy" as nations, and collapse as soon as the people are set free to choose their own political future.
If you wish you can do this check yourself.
Switzerland = formed as a bottom up movement by the people = successful multiethnic/lingual country
Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, or Belgium were formed as "top down" decisions by rulers, and did not represent the widespread wish of the people. Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia don't exist anymore, and even today Belgium is a political shambles (they can't even form a workable central government).
The people in tbe north (Dutch) and south (French) have little in common, often don't want to mix, or share cultural experiences.
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
20
-
20
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere.
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as a "advantage" see footnote), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down", Russia "out" and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up...
This is divide-and-rule.
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS/GLOBALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS/MILITARISTS. Their branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
19
-
For more than a century up to around 1900, London secured their Empire by uniquely "balancing powers" on the the continent. A geographical advantage meant they could use and abuse "temporary best friends" for their own porposes...expansion and greed, thinly veiled by random acts of kindness...
What had been built up for four-hundred years, was squandered in less than a lifetime.
With Dresden and other over the top excesses, they destroyed the balance.
Dresden is symbolic for the nail in the coffin...of the British Empire.
After the war, they would be at the mercy of two powers they had called "friends" (in a long list of previous "friends"), they had no control or influence over, and who desired Empire's valuable spheres of influence all over the world.
After the war there was nothing left to "balance out" Moscow and Washington DC.
From the complete Yes Minister:
"Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see."
How funny....
So London liked to "play games", and in the end end they "won" the proverbial "stupid prize". The eclipse of their 400-year Empire in less than a lifetime.
Down they went.
Onto the dustpile of history where they belonged...
19
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage" see footnote), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. They would wait.
This is divide-and-rule.
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
Most Germans interested in military history, are not apologetic about the military actions of the armed forces (Wehrmacht, Heer, KM and LW), unless these were clearly criminal (using acceptable criteria for the word "criminal").
The other thing is the political actions of the Nazi government, such as the intentional killing and genocide of those seen as 'inferior' or by using racial criteria (Holocaust, etc.). In this case, ONLY Neonazis and other idiots use the debating tactics of apologia, finger-pointing, misdirection, misinformation and misinterpretation, to make bad excuses for the actions of their 'heroes'....
18
-
18
-
18
-
Vote a third party.
Back in the 1990s Tel Aviv was sneakily trying to introduce Apartheid, at the same time South Africa was busy ending it under international pressure. Of course, Israel was (according to imperialist logic) "doing nothing wrong"...
At the time the world was applauding South Africa as it ended Apartheid, and simultaneously the world was applauding Israel's attempt at introducing Apartheid, branding it as just "trying to create peace."
Note, whilst singling out the Palestinians/Arafat as being "unreasonable" and "rejecting the Israeli olive leaf of peace...blah, blah..." as the accepted narrative of the Mainstream Media.
Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, "We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [edit: the historical examples being the "Apartheid dependencies," of the "Bantustan"] ... and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines ... The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term ... Jerusalem (would be) united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty ... will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev. We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth."
All the questionable clauses, eluding reality by use of the typical vague political doublespeak, have been highlighted.
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control. What that would have meant, we see today. Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city. Notice how Rabin, commonly held as a dove in politics, never used the term "full sovereign state" when he referred to this "Palestine", but the term "less than a state." Did you spot the use of [Israel's] "natural growth"? Critical question... Where to? Where would Israelis/Zionists "naturally grow" to, if there were equal neighbors, as a balanced power, which could actually stop any such Zionist settler "growth". The Jordan Valley, extends BOTH sides of the Jordan River. Now, I'm sure that was just another slip-up too, of people who don't understand simple geography. Whatever. It is fairly clear what they wanted, and there are historical examples for this: the "pool of cheap labor" within the own borders, as the concept of the "Bantustan" was for the RSA, given a little bit of "independence" to manage own affairs, but de facto/de jure powerless to stop the CONTROLLING power, intended to be Jerusalem, as Jweish capital city with the right to introduce permit laws, etc. It is literally what RSA did with their "Bantustans". Back then the people could not be fooled. They saw through the deceit, and rightfully called it out for what it was: just another Apartheid ploy to avoid the rise of political equals.
Sad reality? Today masses of fools are being mislead into praising Israel's attempted implementation of Apartheid as an attempt at peace, while at the same time denouncing a similar scheme actually implemented by the RSA in stages after WW2, as being bigoted/racist.
Vote a third party.
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
This is the theory.
According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules.
According to the concept of "meaning of words" all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life (50% for us, the minority), on ALL tiers, often by force, coercian, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world).
That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power).
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
What Claire is perfectly explaining, is what she is witnissing.
What she is witnissing, is of course an effect.
She is explaining the frustrations of having to deal with a system based on "divide and rule".
The funny thing about the divide and rule world, is that many tell you what the problems are, but very few state how to solve it.
The "divide and rule/conquer"-world is intact. It is practically as old as modern civilisation, and has never been "defeated". Those with true power will do their utmost to ensure that the "divide and rule"-world we live in today, will "rule" for all times. They are the "1%-ters", the "elites" or the "300", or the "Oberen 10,000" or whatever one wishes to call this deeply connected and entrenched system of rule and domination.
"After all, the past is our only real guide to the future ... a map by which we can navigate." - Michael Mandelbaum
Like all other words, even quotes about our leaders can be analysed for meaning.
These are highlighted:
"Governments constantly choose between telling lies and fighting wars, with the end result always being the same. One will always lead to the other." - Thomas Jefferson
"The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government." - Edward Abbey
"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." - Will Rogers
"Everything government touches turns to crap." - Ringo Starr
"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." - Ronald Reagan
"I love my country, not my government." - Jesse Ventura
"I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
"True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country." - Kurt Vonnegut
"On July 4 we celebrate government of the people, by the people, and for the people, or as they are now called, corporations." - Andy Borowitz
"In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful." - Leo Tolstoy
"It is bad governments, not bad people, who cause revolutions." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"A government which is not liked by the artists is certainly a bad government, because artist sees very well what is behind the masks!" - Mehmet Murat Ildan
"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth." ― Albert Einstein
On the topic of "divide and rule", as a strategy of power, and a means used by the powerful throughout history:
"When two brothers are busy fighting, an evil man can easily attack and rob their poor mother. Mankind should always stay united, standing shoulder to shoulder so evil can never cheat and divide them." ― Suzy Kassem
"Divide and rule, the politician cries; Unite and lead, is watchword of the wise." ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"The rich ruling class has used tribalism, a primitive caveman instinct, to their advantage since the beginning of time. They use it to divide and conquer us. They drive wedges between us peasants and make us fight each other, so we won’t rise up against our rulers and fight them. You can observe the same old trick everywhere in America today... That doesn’t just happen all by itself. There are always voices instigating these fights." ― Oliver Markus Malloy
"Divide and rule, weaken and conquer, love and enslave, these are three tenets of politics" ― Bangambiki Habyarimana
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)." ― Mark Twain
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
IDF Intelligence Service report from June 1948 lists 11 factors which precipitated the exodus, listing them in order of importance as:
a. Direct hostile Jewish operations against Arab settlements. (The Haganah was the army of the Yeshuv, or Jewish community in Palestine, and was the precursor of the Israeli Defense Force, or IDF.)
b. The effect of our hostile operations on nearby Arab settlements (especially the fall of large neighboring centers).
c. Operations of the Jewish dissidents (terrorist organisations like Irgun and the Stern Gang, also known as the Irgun Tzvai Leumi, Lehi, etc.).
d. Jewish whispering operations (psy-ops) aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.
e. Expulsion orders (by Haganah/IDF).
The Israeli Intelligence Service gives an explanation re. the main factors, concluding that “without doubt, hostile (edit: own) operations were the main cause of the movement of the population”.
According to the own analyses, it was a forced expulsion, or ethnic cleansing. Note that more than half of these actions took place before the Arab attack of 1948, so that the typical apologetic "it was war you know," is no excuse.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works."
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others.
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
Washington DC and "American interests" have already "won". See Nordstream: American corporations buying up the ruins, pivoting to Russia, and when the "peace" is reinstated in some future, a US corporation will own the infrastructure, siphon off profit as middleman, and Washington DC will CONTROL this future resource flow into Europe de facto and de jure...
Europeans are the biggest dumba~~es on the planet.
Sorry, no offense...
17
-
Back in the 1990s Tel Aviv was sneakily trying to introduce Apartheid, at the same time South Africa was busy ending it under international pressure. Of course, Israel was (according to imperialist logic) "doing nothing wrong"...
At the time the world was applauding South Africa as it ended Apartheid, and simultaneously the world was applauding Israel's attempt at introducing Apartheid, branding it as just "trying to create peace."
Note, whilst singling out the Palestinians/Arafat as being "unreasonable" and "rejecting the Israeli olive leaf of peace...blah, blah..." as the accepted narrative of the Mainstream Media.
Israel never intended for Palestinians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, "We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [edit: the historical examples being the "Apartheid dependencies," of the "Bantustan"] ... and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines ... The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term ... Jerusalem (would be) united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty ... will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev. We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth."
All the questionable clauses, eluding reality by use of the typical vague political doublespeak, have been highlighted.
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control. What that would have meant, we see today. Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city.
Notice how Rabin, commonly held as a dove in politics, never used the term "full sovereign state" when he referred to this "Palestine", but the term "less than a state." Did you spot the use of [Israel's] "natural growth"? Critical question... Where to? Where would Israelis/Zionists "naturally grow" to, if there were equal neighbours, as a balanced power, which could actually stop any such Zionist settler "growth". The Jordan Valley, extends BOTH sides of the Jordan River. Now, I'm sure that was just another slip-up too, of people who don't understand simple geography. Whatever. It is fairly clear what they wanted, and there are historical examples for this: the "pool of cheap labor" within the own borders, as the concept of the "Bantustan" was for the RSA, given a little bit of "independence" to manage some of the own affairs, but de facto/de jure powerless to stop the CONTROLLING power, intended to be Jerusalem, as Jweish capital city with the right to introduce permit laws, etc. It is literally what RSA did with their "Bantustans". Back then the people could not be fooled. They saw through the deceit, and rightfully called it out for what it was: just another Apartheid ploy to avoid the rise of political equals.
Sad reality? Today masses of fools are being mislead into praising Israel's attempted implementation of Apartheid as an attempt at peace, while at the same time denouncing a similar scheme actually implemented by the RSA in stages after WW2, as being bigoted/racist.
"Imperialism" and apartheid (divide-and-rule as minority CONTROL) has been sugar-coated under the guise of "freedom" or "western values", incidentally the same slogans which were used 100 years ago at the height of colonialism/Western imperialism.
The doublespeak to mislead the masses is exactly the same.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
At 22:45
The US crushing an ally like Japan, which was too successful, is nothing new.
After WW2 it crushed the British Empire, using economic warfare.
Quote...
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
-----------------------------------
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
17
-
17
-
To ensure the superiority of the British Empire, Halford Mackinder summarised his theory on geopolitics as follows: "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland (edit: roughly the area of Western Russia and Eastern Europe); who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world."
Note here that Royal Navy battleships could not reach this "heartland" for direct rule, the own population figures were to low for overpowering or invading this region, and the local continental European political/economic powers here were too strong for an outside power to implement indirect rule (per proxy).
A hundred years later, the new "rulers of the world" in Washington DC, still eager to assert their own "full spectrum domination" (yes, that is a real term used in other strategy papers):
"... how America manages Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent ... About 75 percent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about 60 percent of the world's GNP and about threefourths of the world's known energy resources. Eurasia is also the location of most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states... The world's two most populous aspirants to regional hegemony and global influence are Eurasian. All of the potential political and/or economic challengers to American primacy are Eurasian." Excerpt from "THE GRAND CHESSBOARD American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives" by Zbigniew Brzezinski
Notice the word: "manages".
Strategies like "managing", "moderating", or the similar concept of "steering", all taking place in a comprehensive strategy aka "divide and rule". A strategy so simple most people will kick themselves when they find out how it works: Once one has attained a position of superior power, pick a favorate (favoratism), or two, or three, and start "managing/directing" like the boss of a company delegating tasks...
The only difference between the two powers, one gaining and the other waning, was that after WW2 the USA took over this very same strategy from London. More and more analysts are discovering (archival evidence) that this overpowering of the British Empire, which was implemented in stages by her own "special relationship"-best friend the USA after WW2, was not simply a matter of luck, or a matter of "global hegemony falling into the lap of the USA" or the "good guys winning", as popularly believed, but rather a long-term premeditated strategy.
Search for "Ho--w Amer..ica bro-ke the Br.tish Empire / the other Graet Gam..e 1941-1947" here on YouTube...
Washington DC overpowered their own "best fwiends" using the very same "divide and rule"-technique London had previously implemented ON THE CONTINENT.
Critical question.
If it is the historical realisation ever since before Mackinder (Geographical Pivot of History/1904) that a united Eurasia in some or other form, at the "core" of the planet is the danger to the periphery, then what is the strategy to avoid that? This simply begs the further question: What strategies were the periphery (UK, USA) going to employ to avoid/prevent these regions from uniting into mutually beneficial cooperation, or formating as single powers (by military force or close alliances)?
Answers:
The Treaty of Versailles, was "divide and rule": Europeans were divided, with a ruling...
The Truman Doctrine was "divide and rule": Europeans, were yet again, divided with a "ruling".
Even today, Europeans are being "managed" in ways they simply cannot imagine for themselves (individual level).
Creeping up on Russia post-1990s, using "proxies/tools" (Eastern Europeans ex-WP states), is the exact same technique. The desired endsieg is to get others into the state of "extending" the rival to such a point, doing the "heavy lifting", so that the "dividers" can move in and "divide" Russian citizens (of course, these are multi-lingual and multi-ethnic) with "rulings" to surround China...
Whatever the outcome in the Ukraine or Israel/Gaza, the dividers in Washington DC have already achieved their aim. Eurasia is "divided" into multiple "teams", all arguing with each other and pointing fingers, playing the blame game, unable to unite into greater powers...
17
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent, siphon off the gains, which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and the local little tools will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others.
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global "balance of power", to avoid a few million gaining at the expense of billions, as the USA/collective West has done these past 500 years.
I'm sure Chinese and Russian leaders will imnediately agree to this, and our US/collective West will do as they've always done: pretend to wish to "sign up for it" overtly and ostentatiously (doves), but use deception to torpedo such attempts of global equillibrium covertly (hawks).
Good cop, bad cop.
Divide-and-rule.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
To understand what happened to China during their "Century of Humiliation," means that one then already has the template to understand what the USA/collective West is trying to do today, by studying the strategies of before. One can use the historical "template" and apply it in the same manner.
It is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today. Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the little minions benefiting from the outside POWER of imperialism to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) crises into "eternal problems," sit by and do nothing as problems foment into violence, revolutions, and wars, or carry out other forms of privatized interference (corporatism) under government protection, or without. Whatever works, details really REALLY DON'T MATTER. Once "fomented troubles" rise out of hand, claim to "just want peace." Then use the little minions as favorites (favoratism = a technique within the "divide and rule" strategy of power) to destabilize an entire region, steer them against other weaker entities, and/or employ them as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regions as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc.
Whatever works for the desired region to be divided/conquered or where CONTROL and domination is required for the economic systems of gain.
There is no way that current day Chinese leaders will not have learnt their very own historical lesson, and allow their very own history to repeat/rhyme, and allow such outside meddling in the own systems to gain traction, AGAIN for a second time.
Every nation or state has its own "Never again!"
Europe has not learnt its lesson yet. They are still little minions of power, centred on their mastah, Washington DC/Pentagon, snd European nations are only quasi independent.
China has learnt the lesson.
Unite, or suffer.
Empires do not become dominant because they hand out candy and bouquets of flowers, as most realists are fully aware of, therefore the wise advice to always keep a wise and just "balance of powers." If not, fail.
Power flows to where the attention goes first, in geopolitics, in the form of political policies.
These can be studied by looking at the events themselves, not what another human being tells you (incl. this essay, which doesn't "tell" you anything, but implores you to start focusing on the well-known events themselves, from which one can then infer the underlying hidden policies, strategies, or objectives).
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The last time the USA gained big time, was after the USA had played its own still relatively small part in setting up Imperialist Europe for failure 100 years ago, starting around 1900 in small steps, using the divide and rule technique of power and from a position of unassailable geographical favor (the geographical reality can also be stated using other words, such as "competing from advantageous ground"/RAND Report, 2019).
How are American leaders going to get Eurasian states/countries, incl. their own "friends" in the EU, and the rising East Asian part of BRICS, to go "down" again so the good times of "50% wealth for us" (post-WW2 strategy/McKennan) can continue? How can the USA cobtinue to attract and rake in all the runaway talent from everywhere else as these regions are destroyed by crises and war (brain drain), and as these wars are funded by the post-1913 fiat currency dollar hegemony? (see footnote)
How can US leadership avoid having to deal with the OWN divided-and-ruled population when they can no longer be pacified by throwing heaps of luxury into their laps, getting successively disgruntled as the amount of afforded wealth is decreasing yearly, and ever-more unevenly siphoned off within the own system (1% owning 50% of wealth in the USA). How to keep everybody else on the planet "exhausted" and "extended," all the while pretending to be friends?
Note that the current rising anger within the USA is no longer ground on moral inequalities, such as the large uprisings in the 1960s, and 1970s. The current anger on the the streets, is overwhelming carried by a massive inequality within the OWN country, with the mega-rich encroaching on the own small amounts of acquired wealth in ever more outrageous and openly advocated and politically backed corporate steps. These private equity vultures that were once set loose on the entire planet, are now coming "home to roost"...
Obviously, unlike the post-WW2 "good ol' days" there is not enough to pass around anymore, as other nations rise and start demanding a fairer share of the world's resources.
WHAT. ARE. THEY. GOING. TO. DO?
Answer: They are already doing it. Implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power, both abroad as well as over the own people, same as ever since they existed.*
footnote
Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money = "control" the resources. It doesn't need a ton of books to explain what money is. Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money/currency = "control" the resources. There. Did it in twenty seconds 😂
That is the system YOU cheer for as "best that can be done."
"If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu," February 17th 2024, US Secretary of State Blinken. If you don't got the money honey, YOU are going to be eaten, if YOU don't unite with your neighbors, regardless of their class, religious beliefs, race or ethnity, place of birth, language, culture or other easily implemented "divides" such as "lines drawn on a map" which are often politically exploited to the gain of the "top tiers."
Money is a vehicle to allocate resources. It's the physical resources which are limited, and who controls the flow of printable money, controls the flow of resources.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
Carl Sagan: “I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness... The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance.”
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
@ashton1952 Thank you, but no. I intend to make the information freely available, and spread it thus, via social media, asking everybody who is interested to aid in spreading the information about how the divide-and-rule strategy actually works in practice. If I should get a dollar every time somebody has asked me if I'm writing a book, I wouldn't have to write a book. ☺️
The issue with books is that most people who are being divided (base of the pyramids of societies) don't read, so they will never know how they are being used.
The tips of the pyramids already know.
Another book, is not going to tell them anything they don't already know.
These "1%-ters", or the "establishment", or the "Oberen Zehntausend", or "the 300", or whatever the street calls them in the respective countries, already know how to steer and manipulate the "masses" for their own gain.
This imbalance of knowledge is exploited by the pyramidal shaped structures of power, who steer the world through strategies. The most powerful strategy of all times remains the divide-and-rule technique, and the related "divide and control." Divide the base, and control the resulting confused and distracted individuals.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
Rules maybe, but not logic...
British leaders were fools, and ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
[Search for: britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
Keeping Germany as "down" as possible, and keeping Russia as "out" of any comprehensive European solution as possible, for mutually agreed upon comprehensive security agreements is a recurring issue in European systems interacting. It mainly turned out as very beneficial for outside powers, especially the USA.
Not only logically, but also statistically, should Western continental Europe and Eastern continental Europe ever unite, with shared good relations to China, it would overpower the USA as world hegemon. Basically, keeping Central European "brains" (innovation and technology) and Russian "muscle" (manpower, strategic location, plus raw materials) apart, has a long history which spanned two empires. The British Empire before World War 2, as stated in Mackinder's Pivot of History (1904) and the new American Century after 1945.
It started a long time ago, with the British Empire setting out to avoid more unity, and breaking up the Three Kaiser League as a stated goal. "Disraeli also achieved a hidden objective. Beaconsfield revealed to Henry Drummond Wolff that the British mission to the Congress of Berlin had two major objectives. Next to making a tolerable settlement for the Porte, our great object was to break up, and permanently prevent, the alliance of the three Empires, and I maintain there never was a general diplomatic result more completely effected. Of course, it does not appear on the protocols; it was realised by personal influence alone, both on Andrassy [the Austrian representative] and Bismarck. The members of the Three Emperors' League were Austria, Germany, and Russia. The Congress of Berlin drove a wedge between Russia and the other two members. Germany formed the Dual Alliance with Austria in 1879 to protect one another from possible Russian aggression. The treaty remained in effect even after Russia requested a renewal
of the Three Emperors' League in 1881. "The Dreikaiserbund [Three Emperors' League] never did recover from the Eastern crisis while Disraeli was in office, and its later revival after Gladstone put *Beaconsfieldism' into reverse took a different and less stable form." from THE FOURTH PARTY AND CONSERVATIVE EVOLUTION, 1880-1885 by KEITH RICHMON OWEN, B.A., M.A. A DISSERTATION IN HISTORY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in August, 2000 (p.25)
Therefore, speaking about the post-2000 attempt of keeping Russia "out" of Europe, by encroaching on it with NATO expansion might well not be a "mistake" as stated by David T. Pyne, but a geopolitical strategy, and it has a long history.
It it were a mere "mistake", it would be amazingly recurring:
- attempts to break up the Three Kaiser League (by London) 1879
- attempts to break up Treaty of Bjorko (by London) 1905
- Versailles (Limitrophe States as a barrier in Eurasia, by London in conjunction with Washington DC)
- The quasi inofficial "declaration" of the Cold War (Churchill/"Iron Curtain" speech), 1946
- Truman Doctrine (by Washington DC), 1947
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the (Washington DC) administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]" Or as the old insider joke went: NATO's function was "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out." (Lord Ismay)
Whether these are real "mistakes" (sic.) or a concerted strategy lurks behind as ulterior motive, remains hidden.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
Not only the Ukraine, and not only currently.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the foot of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers.
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide and Rule.
The LINK of the WORLD.
Oldest trick in the book...
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust.
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection.
Then point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."
Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST.
And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power.
In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS.
In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS.
Namebranding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relations" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket for the modus operandi.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
---------------------------------------
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script for the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Africa and the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in Africa and the ME) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
14
-
If one understands what happened to China during their "Century of Humiliation," means that one then already has the template to understand what is happening today. One can use the historical "template" and apply it in the same manner.
What happened to China during that era, is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today. Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the little minions benefiting from the outside POWER of imperialism to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) crises into "eternal problems," sit by and do nothing as problems foment into violence, revolutions, and wars, or carry out other forms of privatized interference (corporatism) under government protection, or without. Whatever works, details really REALLY DON'T MATTER. Once "fomented troubles" rise out of hand, claim to "just want peace." Then use the little minions as favourites (favouritism = a technique within the "divide and rule" strategy of power) to destabilize an entire region, steer them against other weaker entities, and/or employ them as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regions as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc.
Whatever works for the desired region to be divided/conquered or where CONTROL and domination is required for the economic systems of gain.
There is no way that current day Chinese leaders will not have learnt their very own historical lesson, and allow their very own history to repeat/rhyme, and allow such outside meddling in the own systems to gain traction, AGAIN for a second time.
Every nation or state has its own "Never again!"
European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonial ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon. These citizens, usually around 50% of entire populations, suffer directly ("heating or eating"), or indirectly (soaring inflation), these are all "effects," not to be confused with "causes" (see concept of retro causality, one of the most easily misused ways to skew a timeline of events). Some eventually even end up in the muddy trenches.
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their (temporary) GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
With re. to how tools are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also, that a "plan" and the strategy to effect the plan, are two different things.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as the USA implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combatted by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today, and there is MORE than sufficient evidence for this. Outsiders intent on playing the game, use the revolutionary spirit, in order to hop onto useful dissent, strengthen it, and insert levers which they can pry open to gain own advantages. Beijing is certainly 100% aware of this, so everything you are witnessing today is a political EFFECT, not a political "cause" as some leaders wish to mislead us towards.
Everything you are being told about Berlin, in stages after 1894, 1904, 1907, and 1912, with gathering momentum, were EFFECTS, not CAUSES. That was, based on observation, outside powers with the intention to "divide and rule" Europe, by encroaching/encircling the major continental power, which has never changed throughout recent modern history. The ONLY factor which changed over the last few centuries, was the "major continental power" which had to be CONTROLLED by the outside power who wanted a competitive advantage. The historical parallel, is the "Chinese Century of Shame"-historicity, and is well-known at least to the 1.4 billion inhabitants of China today. Certainly, they also do not wish to become "carved up" and ruled over by outsiders again, for a second time. The template therefore predicts a similar outcome, that of the more encroachment/encirclement, the more likeliness of the "breakout attempt" in some possible future.
Obvious solution for a more stable world, stop the encroachment/encirclement.
Both historically (post-1900) as well as our recent history (post-2000) there seems little incentive for those with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to do so, but rather the repeated attempts to search for tools to do such encroachment/encirclement FOR the outside power/s intent on gain.
Empires do not become dominant because they hand out candy and bouquets of flowers, as most realists are fully aware of, therefore the wise advice to always keep a just/wise "balance of powers. If not, fail.
Power flows to where the attention goes first, in geopolitics, in the form of political policies.
These can be studied by looking at the events themselves, not what another human being tells you (incl. this essay, which doesn't tell you anything, but implores you to start focusing on the well-known events themselves, from which one can then infer the underlying hidden policies, strategies, or objectives).
If you live in East Asia, beware of the "dividers".
The hawks will come looking for "buck catchers" and the doves will disguise it as the "helping friends"-narrative = i.e. the template of modern western imperialism. Hawks and doves working in close unison, although stated as being opposite poles.
They WILL come to you, same way as they came to the Ukraine, following the 1990s.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused," as stated as desirable by Woodrow Wilson, one of the world's biggest advocates of imperialism/white supremacy, whilst hiding behind a "an image" of being a liberal/idealist/progressive (taken from a unpublished paper of 1907, as quoted in The Rising American Empire, 1960, by Richard Warner Van Alstyne, p. 201.)
Wilson of course was simply looking at what had happened the past 200 years as the original "13 colonies", first fought for independence, and then started going N.E.W.S. (North/East/West/South), brushing away all in its path. They wouldn't stop going, until they bumped up against European imperialism, their biggest rivals.
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed."
Such statements were taken from a series of Washington DC "strategy papers". To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this."
(taken from, in parts: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive Diplomático y escritor)
14
-
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The last time the USA gained big time, was after the USA had played its own still relatively small part in setting up Imperialist Europe for failure 100 years ago, starting around 1900 in small steps, using the divide and rule technique of power and from a position of unassailable geographical favor (the geographical reality can also be stated using other words, such as "competing from advantageous ground"/RAND Report, 2019).
How are American leaders going to get Eurasian states/countries, incl. their own "friends" in the EU, and the rising East Asian part of BRICS, to go "down" again so the good times of "50% wealth for us" (post-WW2 strategy/McKennan) can continue? How can the USA cobtinue to attract and rake in all the runaway talent from everywhere else as these regions are destroyed by crises and war (brain drain), and as these wars are funded by the post-1913 fiat currency dollar hegemony? (see footnote)
How can US leadership avoid having to deal with the OWN divided-and-ruled population when they can no longer be pacified by throwing heaps of luxury into their laps, getting successively disgruntled as the amount of afforded wealth is decreasing yearly, and ever-more unevenly siphoned off within the own system (1% owning 50% of wealth in the USA). How to keep everybody else on the planet "exhausted" and "extended," all the while pretending to be friends?
Note that the current rising anger within the USA is no longer ground on moral inequalities, such as the large uprisings in the 1960s, and 1970s. The current anger on the the streets, is overwhelming carried by a massive inequality within the OWN country, with the mega-rich encroaching on the own small amounts of acquired wealth in ever more outrageous and openly advocated and politically backed corporate steps. These private equity vultures that were once set loose on the entire planet, are now coming "home to roost"...
Obviously, unlike the post-WW2 "good ol' days" there is not enough to pass around anymore, as other nations rise and start demanding a fairer share of the world's resources.
WHAT. ARE. THEY. GOING. TO. DO?
Answer: They are already doing it. Implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power, both abroad as well as over the own people, same as ever since they existed.*
footnote
Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money = "control" the resources. It doesn't need a ton of books to explain what money is. Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money/currency = "control" the resources. There. Did it in twenty seconds 😂
That is the system YOU cheer for as "best that can be done."
"If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu," February 17th 2024, US Secretary of State Blinken. If you don't got the money honey, YOU are going to be eaten, if YOU don't unite with your neighbors, regardless of their class, religious beliefs, race or ethnity, place of birth, language, culture or other easily implemented "divides" such as "lines drawn on a map" which are often politically exploited to the gain of the "top tiers."
Money is a vehicle to allocate resources. It's the physical resources which are limited, and who controls the flow of printable money, controls the flow of resources.
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
Blackjack My message for the day :-)
Yes, the USA is a great nation, with strengths and weaknesses like all other nations.
Let's hope Trump does what he promised, and breaks the grip that dark side of The Force has on the nation, which rules America in the background, pulling the strings....the CIA interfering and meddling...the lobbying of the establishment for wars in shitholes where their business interests run...
Instead, make America great, by improving the infrastructure, investing in the the education of the youth, and improve neighbouring relations.
Oh, boy. In the words of Yoda: A tough uphill battle that 'dark side' is :-)
If you are young, I wish you luck....
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar.
Washington DC s strategy is constant, using a geographical position of power.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equilibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to, and gaslighting the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequilibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equilibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The "divide and control/rule/conquer"-world is intact. It is practically as old as modern civilisation, and has never been defeated. Those with true power will do their utmost to ensure that the "divide and rule"-world we live in today, will rule for all times, because the DIVIDERS win, if all others fail.
The divide-and-rule system is a formless headless global system composed of every imaginable race, religion, ethnicity, language group, class, creed as an "ingroup" of power. This ingroup which intends to DIVIDE emergent unity elsewhere, contains all forms of "personal conviction" as "-ism" imaginable, with only a little input from top tiers.
Their aim is division.
This is divide-and-rule.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
Cooperation between human systems is by nature chaotic, because human nature is complex but at least somewhat predictable. When the dividers came to Britain with the Roman Empire, it did not matter to the dividers why some local Brits cooperated with the empire, to divide and overpower or destroy the local systems of power, or how divided Brits already were before Rome arrived, which local Brit collaborator got what and how much for cooperation with the empire: what is important, is that enough cooperated for Rome to overpower Britain.
POWERS have always done it.
"Divide" the opposition any way possible.
If you have trouble imagining how "division" works, then imagine a wall from which single bricks are extracted one after the other, by POWER or allure (usually money), until the wall gets fragile or even collapses.
The group that can divide all others groups, and avoid them from uniting into larger entities, will rule over all the others.
It is not complicated, never mind what any dissenters wish to inform you of, or all that so-called news filling your screen with 99% ancillary details every day.
Formula in any divide-and-rule strategy, carried out as premeditated aim or instinctively, and regardless of the tier of power.
Maximum unity for "us" (ingroup doing the division).
Maximum division for all others (outgroups to be divided for gain).
A typical position of an apologist, once the apologist for immoral actions realizes an objectively correct observation provable by looking at primary sources like maps, can no longer be denied, is to engage in "bothsidesisms" or the claim that "both sides were doing the same thing." No, incorrect. Because only ONE "side" had the geographical advantage to actually implement the encirclement of the other.
For the American Century after the year 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger chunk of land than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": the technique used was the same.
For the "divider" the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in order to achieve the useful division for the higher power, are not important. When the dividers came to Europe with the fledgling American Century, it did not matter to the dividers why some local Europeans cooperated with the empire, to divide and overpower or destroy the local systems of power, or how divided Europeans already were before Washington DC appeared on scene in ever-increasing perpetuity after 1900, which local European collaborator got what and how much for cooperation with the empire: what is important, is that enough cooperated for Washington DC to subject Europe. These are the 99% ancillary details of history. It doesn't matter how division is implemented, or how existing divides are deepened, or who aids for whatever reasons, or whether those aiding and abetting division are even aware that they are aiding division: what matters is that it is implemented.
For the divider it is not important why the tools cooperate, but the fact that the tools cooperate in creating division in overpowering a chunk of the planet somewhere.
Why and that are different premises...
The empire in search of systemic expansion does not care about the "why".
The trick is that the mass media, and our leaders advocating the spread of their ideology, have deceived you into thinking "territorial expansion = bad", whilst at the same time, the same people who "point fingers" (aka the "blame game") cheer for systemic expansion.
Both are cycles of lies leading to wars, and wars leading to lies, and then lies leading to wars again.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
Divide and conquer works because not everyone involved knows that they are taking on a role in a power game. That's how the strategy works. Very few people really need to understand it. In English, the principle is called "Useful Innocent/Useful Idiot." From a position of power, you can animate people (usually through money, or ideology) who play a role, but they know not what they do.
The peoples of Eurasia and the world, including Western Europe (most of which are Christian) and Western Asia (most of which are Semites), have been divided and ruled by foreigners for centuries.
Because it's easier to divide people based on personal differences than to unite them based on their similarities. Strategically ambivalent foreigners use this to their own advantage. In the era of European imperialism, London initially dragged along its junior partner Paris to meddle here, and after 1945 as the influence of European colonial powers declined, Washington DC simply took on the role of divider (during the Cold War, the whole world was the playground). Now the intention is simply to avoid the unity of Eurasia in order to "rule" over the dissenters, which is the classic "divide and conquer" principle. This strategy is kept under wraps, due to a systemic desire to be "good", and on the "right side of history", and therefore overemphasizing the actions of philanthropists, political doves, peace activists, religious leaders, etc.
At the same time the activities of political hawks sowing divisions are downplayed, relativized, apologized for, mostly by politicians and strategists as the "story tellers" of history. But also by commoners, who simply parrot the stories without thinking them through, and who are NOT privy to the overall strategy (divide-and-rule in all its intricacies and nuances).
"The main interest of the United States - for which we have been fighting wars for a century (the First, Second and the Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only power that could threaten us. And we must make sure that does not happen. ... For the United States ... the greatest fear is German technology, German capital and Russian natural resources, Russian labor as the only combination that has frightened the United States for centuries. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltic to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, February 2015
Today their leaders are too weak to unite, to avoid their "friends" simply drawing lines on the map, which they cower down to and must obey.
Like a ratchet, one click at a time, the "marching empire."
Endless wars, constant disagreements, using imperialism to stay on top.
Using "levers" of lies and distrust, via power players.
Creating favorites: favoring the proxies who bow down and sacrifice themselves for the mastah.
Pointing fingers, everywhere else, using the POWER of the mainstream media.
Divide-and-rule/conquer.
The oldest trick in the book...
Who has the POWER? Who (in all historical cases in Eurasia) had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all other "buck catchers" (tools and other instruments of POWER in the Roman era style), but could not be reached themselves at any point in a historical timeline due to a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic- or political advantage?
“Divide-and-rule/conquer” as a standard strategy of power and thus the cause of nearly all conflicts in the world connects the dots on the timeline of history. Who (in all historical cases in the Middle East/Levant) had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being far from the events resulting from their own meddling and political activities and being able to reach all other regions, but could not be reached themselves as a hegemony at any point in a historical timeline? It only works within a technological window of opportunity: for the British Empire, it was when naval power “ruled the world” and its own heartland was “unreachable” and from this impregnable fortress it could “divide” all others and thus prevent unification elsewhere. After WWII and today, it will only work as long as the combination of political influence, nuclear weapons and cultural hegemony dominates all others.
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, they say. Who gathers the pieces of the great wealth and systemic gains when everyone else has failed to unite?
Different empires. Different era. Same games...
Once the Albion, always the Albion.
In their own narratives, the "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy."
The opposition that wants unity in a region is the "bad guy."
We, who seek true peace and harmony, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized.
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D chess." Everything you know is a "variation" of reality. They are playing “5D chess” with the minds of 2D checkers players, within the rains of people who think they are “smart”.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
Churchill was a terrible strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created *facts*. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
"The bombing of Plzeň in what was then Czechoslovakia. The official history stated that the Skoda works in Pilsen "received 500 well-placed tons", and that "because of a warning sent out ahead of time the workers were able to escape, except for five persons. "The Americans received a rapturous welcome when they liberated the city. Zinn wrote: I recalled flying on that mission, too, as deputy lead bombardier, and that we did not aim specifically at the 'Skoda works' (which I would have noted, because it was the one target in Czechoslovakia I had read about) but dropped our bombs, without much precision, on the city of Pilsen. Two Czech citizens who lived in Pilsen at the time told me, recently, that several hundred people were killed in that raid (that is, Czechs)—not five."
Copied from the Film Archives Channel (YouTube)
After World War II, Zinn attended New York University on the GI Bill, graduating with a B.A. in 1951. At Columbia University, he earned an M.A. (1952) and a Ph.D. in history with a minor in political science (1958).
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." Henry Kissinger
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works."
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and friends, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others.
The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same strategies of expansion as they did 500, 200 and 100 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care. As always, the warning voices of the sane halves are ignored, downplayed, "finger pointed" at as "unpatriotic," or as being "in bed with the enemy", and many other forms of equally "rhyming history." It is what they spend billions on every year so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching to the jolly tunes.
The systems and corporations came in droves for SYSTEMIC EXPANSION and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE...
A little piece of the Ukraine for a little American base.
A tiny sliver of those raw materials...
A nice little chunk of a percentage of political influence.
The meddling created by the own proactive divide-and-rule strategy of power then results in effects:
Imperialistic meddling is always a CAUSE to which there will be a resulting EFFECT.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works."
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is hiding behind the mainstream stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others, any which way.
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same strategies of expansion as they did 500, 200 and 100 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care. As always, the warning voices of the sane halves are ignored, downplayed, "finger pointed" at as "unpatriotic," or as being "in bed with the enemy", and many other forms of equally "rhyming history." It is what they spend billions on every year to obfuscate reality, so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching to the jolly tunes...
The systems and corporations came in droves for SYSTEMIC EXPANSION and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE...
A little piece land with own laws over here for a little American/NATO base.
A nice little piece of capital over there, of the Nordstream project.
A piece of the Panama Canal ...just "wanted back" mind you.
A tiny sliver of those Ukrainian/Caucasian raw materials.
A nice little chunk of real estate, in the Levant
Just a little little bit of a percentage of political influence EVERYwhere.
And, let's not forget, ALL of Greenland... ALL of it...
The meddling created by the own proactive divide-and-rule strategy of power then results in effects:
Imperialistic meddling is always a CAUSE to which there will be a resulting EFFECT.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
True.
Therefore...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
12
-
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
12
-
12
-
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favorite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the lead-up to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power, in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states with a GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION, and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around.
Whatever...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of what some "experts" proclaim, the logic of the "bomber will always get through" of the 1930s, is repeated today, and these various types of nukes will always get through in sufficient amounts to wipe any power off the map. Even if it survives as state or country, it will no longer be a world power. All it needs is sufficient numbers of MIRVs in order to sacrifice some (incl. duds to attract/distract/overwhelm the air defense), so that the mass of the rest will reach their intended targets. So the "experts" tell you their Patriots will stop them. These Patriots and other missiles and air defense systems can be overcome by implementing a very simple programmable and unjam-able multiple-layered enertia-guided and therefore unstoppable attack, as first-strike, and the first incoming Russian nukes, stationed just 15 minutes flight-time away, will act as multiple air burst to wipe out any attempt to intercept them in the radius of 100 miles, and the following strikes in their wake a minute later will mostly get through. Unlike 50, 100, 0r 200 years ago there WILL be a price to pay for pushing, pushing and pushing, until something snaps. For WHEN it "snaps" it won't be like last time with victory parades, and lotsa medals...
Keep on poking the bear.
Get the Ukraine to try and blind the Russian early-warning radar systems.
Keep on "poking by proxy" and we will find out, because we are ruled over by idiots, imperialists, obfuscators, liars, deceivers and manipulators: not all of them, but enough to implement the divide and rule strategy of power.
Keep on poking, and find out that we've always been ruled by chest-thumping fools and psychopaths all along: not all of them, but enough to implement age-old Roman-era strategies of power, intended to gain for a few as most others lose. Just don't for a minute think, the default "other side" doesn't know what our leaders are up to...
Don't for a minute think that in the attempted twisting of observable reality to deceive oneself, that one can deceive others.
Should the above unfold, it doesn't matter anymore how one chest-thumps around about how "superior" or "always right" one systemically always was while setting off on the MARCH ROUTE of the empire.
It doesn't matter anymore if one lives in the EU or Northern Europe, going "but, but, I'm so innocent."
It doesn't matter if one chants "trust our leaders, cos they know better cos cos we democracies and we never did anything wrong as the default setting..."
It doesn't matter anymore about how the few survivors brag about "how many millions of Russians they also bagged".
Then it doesn't matter anymore, because our myopic leaders will no longer be in a position to implement wrongs per "new Versailles" (currently planned in Switzerland for mid-June) and get away with it. Of course, they are going to insist on only negotiating with the true representatives of the peoples of Russia, who truly desire peace just like our own superior Western leaders who have only always wanted peace, cos they said so, and since that turned out so great last time around.
The conference is of course a total waste of taxpayer money, just like Versailles was 100 years ago (1919).
Before Moscow gets into that position of becoming carved up and used as a tool to encroach on the next in line, China, it will wipe the entire West off the map FIRST.
China is not going to stand by without action, while Russia dissolves into single, smaller, easily influenced buck-catchers for the USA/collective West (imperialism, by "using" smaller nations to do the own bidding), because they know full-well they will be next to be carved up and divvied out.
The USA/collective West no longer have a geographical position of power.
The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbors, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed.
Guess who will live longest in the "nuclear winter"-scenario? (theory)_
Short answer: NOT you (personally).
Longer answer: The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand). The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
Because during the next war set up by the dividers of the world, from their assumed GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, it does not matter "who is right" and it does not even matter "who is left," loosely quoting Churchill, but rather in what state the leftovers are going to be in.
CONCLUSION:
Today the default rivals/enemies to keep Eurasia divided and in a state of turmoil, are nuclear powers: they don't have to CARE what you (individual) think is "true" or is the "rule" whilst your empire is slowly creeping up on their borders and spheres of influence, or try to surround or encroach on them with old Roman era schemes, same as around 1900. If the USA/collective West is going to keep on encroaching, or trying to take over spheres of influence, you are going to get your sorry "50% wealth of the world is mine"-ass fried, and then it doesn't matter how many pushups you did that morning, or how beautiful you think your rich neighborhood looks, how lovely your boom boom tanks and airplanes are, or how much of the world's resources you think your systems have a right to CONTROL. The people who gain from an imperialistic setup they implement are overwhelmingly not going to die from the disasters growing out of the foundations they lay down. Throughout history, they've always managed to pay those who overwhelmingly don't gain, to sit in that muddy trench, for the gains of those at the tops of the pyramids.
12
-
12
-
The idea that people have that their own countries are "fighting for the weak and powerless" is a misconception.
States and empires fight for their own benefit, and there is always a "price tag" for "help".
States and empires don't "fight to help weak countries/people".
In case there is a power imbalance: The grand strategy is called "the proxy".
The "big brother" is the benefactor.
The "little brother" is always in danger of becoming a proxy, involuntarily sacrificed for the gain of "the big brother".
Unless the "big brother" and the "little brother" are in the same boat by means of a binding treaty, there is no equality in outcome.
Unless the "brothers in arms" are exposed to the same or similar level of danger and are facing the same or similar potential ill-effects due to own actions/inactions, then it is an unequal relationship. Unless all parties suffer similar percentages of financial and human losses, and risk a similar percentage of destruction to their property and territory, then it is in effect "a proxy" which has been set up for the fall.
The ones losing most are always the "proxies" of course (historical analysis, with multiple examples).
In politics and big business, nobody does anything for free.
How one writes history is more a matter of framing: for example the widespread misconception of "good empires on the right side of history, fighting for the little guy" (aka "the poor people"-argument): notice just how...ahem..."coincidentally" these "poor people" just happen to live in regions of the planet with raw materials/strategic value. Empires are suspiciously very keen on "fighting for democracy/freedom" or "poor people" when these battles take place in areas of the planet benefitting own gain in some or other form, or if it is beneficial to the own rise in power.
In strategy, the so-called "fighting for the little guy/democracy/freedom" is nothing else than "creating a proxy" or "proxy wars" for own gain.
It's the same thing, simply using different words or "putting a spin" on words by changing the perspective, thereby making it more palatable and advantangeous to the own cause, which is own gain.
12
-
There is a fracture zone between the big global players (USA/EU, Russia, China) running from the North Pole, through the Baltic States, Poland and Ukraine, via the Caucasus, Iran, and towards Israel. Another fracture zone is the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa), from there through India, SE Asia (incl. Vietnam), through Taiwan, the Koreas, Japan, Taiwan, back up to the North Pole.
Expect Washington DC, either in collaboration with a NATO state, or tacidly nodded off by the EU, to instigate crises and wars EVERYWHERE on these "fracture zones," because it is the only way they can hang on the the good ol' days a bit longer: their role of the hegemon of the world, and that of the American Century.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
Bombing German cities was counterproductive in 2 main ways.
1) German "factories" was not what limited German production, but rather the lack of raw materials.
2) after WW2, the new "alpha" Washington DC actually needed both Germany and Japan (the losers) as much as they did GB, France and their empires (the winners). So that by opening up the markets in the US sphere of interest, Germany and Japan quickly recovered, and with a completely modernized economy, quickly overtook GB. There was no alternative, because if not, both would have fallen to communism.
GB, and Empire was seen as a rival, and was "cut down to size".
London no longer had the "leverage" to stand up to Washington DC, and were overpowered. Note, overpowering does not necessarily mean war.
Economic warfare is an old established method.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
So after WW2 while the British population and economy were being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, were having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, were still on war rations till way into the 1950s, and lost the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...
So the London lords woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best friends forever" had stolen all their markets.
And that's how "leverage" works.
Washington DC: "I've taken over almost all your markets now. What are you going to do about it?"
Sad reality?
There was nothing London could do about it.
Washing DC had more leverage to impose, and they took over from their former colonial masters.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
In all of this, the USA was not the "innocent anti-imperialist" bystander, as often mistakenly assumed based on the statements made by some or other US leaders.
After the Truman Doctrine had divided Europe, Washington DC intended to enable the totally destroyed and waning Europeans to extend themselves trying to hang on to their empires. It was a US strategy. regardless of what some or other US leaders or historians might claim:
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed." SOURCE: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive
US strategist in these think tanks lay out the scheme of what was going to be the new post-war reality, as a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" for the USA to control. Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under US supervision and finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.)
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." Note, all words in quotes were actual words used IN THIS OFFICIAL US DOCUMENT, and the thesis and its quoted sources can all be downloaded for free, from the www, and using these key words provided for your search engine.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS/GLOBALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS/MILITARISTS. Their branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@Niagaradream If somebody asks me I usually recommend Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding the geopolitics of Eurasia, then W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. With regards to how imperialism/militarism implements the aforementioned, one can read the classic War is a Racket, by Smedley-Butler. Stand alone suggestions regarding strategies of power are other classics like Machiavelli/The Prince, Sun Tzu/Art of War, or Clausewitz/On War. What I wrote in the OP is a part of this "blend" of strategies.
One can add Robert Green/48 Rules of Power to the mix, and from there it isn't far to figure out how the powers implement divide-and-rule on multiple tiers: from domestic politics, and societies, in corporations, within local municipal councils, etc., etc., all the way through to international relations. In case you prefer podcasts you can also search for these in YT since there are several channels which either read, or elaborate these books.
Regarding divide-and-rule: It inverts a lot of the logic of what is generally considered "popular/narrative history" (or "what everybody believes" and "as seen on TV") and with regards to what we are being told are the reasons for crises and wars.
cheers
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar.
Washington DC s strategy is constant, using a geographical position of power.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equillibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equillibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to, and gaslighting the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequillibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
11
-
11
-
11
-
The winds of change are blowing towards China, and the periphery...
"In 2010, China was South Africa's largest trading partner.[2] Since 2007 China-South African relations have become increasingly close with increasing trade, policy and political ties.[3][4] In the 2010 Beijing Declaration, South Africa was upgraded to the diplomatic status of Strategic Comprehensive Partner by the Chinese government.[5]" (wiki)
A hint with regards to how Washington DC is going to "manage" that (see below essay):
"As Robinson points out: Transferring political intervention from the covert to the overt realm does not change its character, but it does make it easier for policymakers to build domestic and international support for this intervention. This is the trump card of democracy promotion, it diffuses opposition to Northern intervention. Advisor to the State Department and academic, Wiarda, clearly sums up: A US stance in favor of democracy helps get the Congress, the bureaucracy, the media, the public, and elite opinion to back US policy. It helps ameliorate the domestic debate, disarms critics (who could be against democracy?) … The democracy agenda enables us, additionally, to merge and fudge over some issues that would otherwise be troublesome. It helps bridge the gap between our fundamental geopolitical and strategic interests … and our need to clothe those security concerns in moralistic language … The democracy agenda, in short, is a kind of legitimacy cover for our more basic strategic objectives."
(Source: Third World Quarterly, Vol 21, No 5, pp 815– 830, 2000; Aiding democracy? Donors and civil society in South Africa by JULIE HEARN)
That's what happens in imperfect systems. Ever so slight imperfections and divisions will be exploited, and the lever of discontent inserted into the slightests cracks...
They will use the "democracy argument", to actually undermine democracy.
What starts off with a good idea in theory (democracy), the political hawks will come along and turn it into a weapon...
"Everything government touches turns to crap." - Ringo Starr
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. Today, this has transformed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBERALS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. This branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
At 27:00 Pepe is wrong.
Not ONLY the current war was because the USA convinced Europeans to destroy each other.
Most of our history is too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture.
After around 1900, Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, ALL Europeans lost.
WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy and a balance of power between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and Great Britain off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted.
WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that the naval powers (GB and the USA) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination (see footnote).
In the end ALL Europeans lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans.
After the Cold War this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards. The new "Iron Curtain" will soon be declared, under some or other fancy term, to divide the eternal "good guys" and the new "bad guys"...
Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain.
-------------
Footnote:
My sincere thanks to a fellow youtuber (@realvipul) who thought my one of essays explaining the divide-and-rule/conquer strategy of power was "TLDR" or too complicated and therefore ran it through AI...
"The comment discusses the concept of "divide and rule" as a strategy employed by powerful entities to maintain control. It argues that human systems are inherently chaotic due to the complexity of human nature, making them susceptible to manipulation through division. The example of the Roman Empire's conquest of Britain around the year "0" is used to illustrate how this strategy works, emphasizing that the motivations of individual collaborators are less important than the overall effect of division in enabling the empire's dominance. The comment then extends this analysis to the American Century, suggesting that the same strategy was used to exert influence over Europe. It highlights that the goal is to create maximum division among opposing groups while maintaining unity within the ruling power. The comment criticizes the media and political leaders for perpetuating a cycle of lies and wars, often under the guise of opposing territorial expansion while simultaneously promoting systemic expansion. In essence, the comment argues that the "divide and rule" strategy is a fundamental tactic employed by powerful entities to maintain control, and that understanding this strategy is crucial for comprehending historical events and current geopolitical dynamics."
It's divide-and-rule/conquer.
Europeans once grew into North America using this technique, morphed into "USA" and then gained North American hegemony using this technique, morphed into the American Century and gained global hegemony using this technique, and are now using the divide-and-rule technique as desperate attempt to hang on to global hegemony...
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
History repeating...
IDF Intelligence Service report from June 1948 lists 11 factors which precipitated the exodus, listing them in order of importance as:
a. Direct hostile Jewish operations against Arab settlements. (The Haganah was the army of the Yeshuv, or Jewish community in Palestine, and was the precursor of the Israeli Defense Force, or IDF.)
b. The effect of our hostile operations on nearby Arab settlements (especially the fall of large neighboring centers).
c. Operations of the Jewish dissidents (terrorist organisations like Irgun and the Stern Gang, also known as the Irgun Tzvai Leumi, Lehi, etc.).
d. Jewish whispering operations (psy-ops) aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.
e. Expulsion orders (by Haganah/IDF).
The Israeli Intelligence Service gives an explanation re. the main factors, concluding that “without doubt, hostile (edit: own) operations were the main cause of the movement of the population”.
According to the own analyses, it was a forced expulsion, or ethnic cleansing.
11
-
11
-
11
-
I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favorite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the lead-up to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power, in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states with a GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION, and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around.
Whatever...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of what some "experts" proclaim, the logic of the "bomber will always get through" of the 1930s, is repeated today, and these various types of nukes will always get through in sufficient amounts to wipe any power off the map. Even if it survives as state or country, it will no longer be a world power. All it needs is sufficient numbers of MIRVs in order to sacrifice some (incl. duds to attract/distract/overwhelm the air defense), so that the mass of the rest will reach their intended targets. So the "experts" tell you their Patriots will stop them. These Patriots and other missiles and air defense systems can be overcome by implementing a very simple programmable and unjam-able multiple-layered enertia-guided and therefore unstoppable attack, as first-strike, and the first incoming Russian nukes, stationed just 15 minutes flight-time away, will act as multiple air burst to wipe out any attempt to intercept them in the radius of 100 miles, and the following strikes in their wake a minute later will mostly get through. Unlike 50, 100, 0r 200 years ago there WILL be a price to pay for pushing, pushing and pushing, until something snaps. For WHEN it "snaps" it won't be like last time with victory parades, and lotsa medals...
Keep on poking the bear.
Get the Ukraine to try and blind the Russian early-warning radar systems.
Keep on "poking by proxy" and we will find out, because we are ruled over by idiots, imperialists, obfuscators, liars, deceivers and manipulators: not all of them, but enough to implement the divide and rule strategy of power.
Keep on poking, and find out that we've always been ruled by chest-thumping fools and psychopaths all along: not all of them, but enough to implement age-old Roman-era strategies of power, intended to gain for a few as most others lose. Just don't for a minute think, the default "other side" doesn't know what our leaders are up to...
Don't for a minute think that in the attempted twisting of observable reality to deceive oneself, that one can deceive others.
Should the above unfold, it doesn't matter anymore how one chest-thumps around about how "superior" or "always right" one systemically always was while setting off on the MARCH ROUTE of the empire.
It doesn't matter anymore if one lives in the EU or Northern Europe, going "but, but, I'm so innocent."
It doesn't matter if one chants "trust our leaders, cos they know better cos cos we democracies and we never did anything wrong as the default setting..."
It doesn't matter anymore about how the few survivors brag about "how many millions of Russians they also bagged".
Then it doesn't matter anymore, because our myopic leaders will no longer be in a position to implement wrongs per "new Versailles" (currently planned in Switzerland for mid-June) and get away with it. Of course, they are going to insist on only negotiating with the true representatives of the peoples of Russia, who truly desire peace just like our own superior Western leaders who have only always wanted peace, cos they said so, and since that turned out so great last time around.
The conference is of course a total waste of taxpayer money, just like Versailles was 100 years ago (1919).
Before Moscow gets into that position of becoming carved up and used as a tool to encroach on the next in line, China, it will wipe the entire West off the map FIRST.
China is not going to stand by without action, while Russia dissolves into single, smaller, easily influenced buck-catchers for the USA/collective West (imperialism, by "using" smaller nations to do the own bidding), because they know full-well they will be next to be carved up and divvied out.
The USA/collective West no longer have a geographical position of power.
The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbors, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed.
Guess who will live longest in the "nuclear winter"-scenario? (theory)_
Short answer: NOT you (personally).
Longer answer: The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand). The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
Because during the next war set up by the dividers of the world, from their assumed GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, it does not matter "who is right" and it does not even matter "who is left," loosely quoting Churchill, but rather in what state the leftovers are going to be in.
CONCLUSION:
Today the default rivals/enemies to keep Eurasia divided and in a state of turmoil, are nuclear powers: they don't have to CARE what you (individual) think is "true" or is the "rule" whilst your empire is slowly creeping up on their borders and spheres of influence, or try to surround or encroach on them with old Roman era schemes, same as around 1900. If the USA/collective West is going to keep on encroaching, or trying to take over spheres of influence, you are going to get your sorry "50% wealth of the world is mine"-ass fried, and then it doesn't matter how many pushups you did that morning, or how beautiful you think your rich neighborhood looks, how lovely your boom boom tanks and airplanes are, or how much of the world's resources you think your systems have a right to CONTROL. The people who gain from an imperialistic setup they implement are overwhelmingly not going to die from the disasters growing out of the foundations they lay down. Throughout history, they've always managed to pay those who overwhelmingly don't gain, to sit in that muddy trench, for the gains of those at the tops of the pyramids.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
It's "divide and rule."
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or the British Empire's Mackinder/Pivot of History before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their geographical advantage.
With re. to how tools to implement the strategy are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as Kissinger implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combated by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today.
Today as we watch on, the Ukraine is being burnt to the "last Ukrainian soldier" accompanied by cheers of "...but, but, but they had a choice!!"
Poland will be next to be given a "choice," if the Ukraine fails as US/Western proxy and tool, in a long list of previous examples of the Washington DC/Pentagon-steered global strategy.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Why is anybody surprised? The USA is a divide-and-rule Mecca for the ultra-rich who practice it.
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors. The people's share in divide-and-rule working is quite simple: unfortunately too many people would rather believe a lie that sounds nice, than the truth which sounds even slightly negative.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast).
In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side").
For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere.
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the "logic" of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this.
The bunker boys and manipulators, are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours.
Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France, and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them.
This is divide-and-rule.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
The story of how the Brits lost their Empire...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...
10
-
10
-
You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works."
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is hiding behind the mainstream stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others, any which way.
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same strategies of expansion as they did 500, 200 and 100 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care. As always, the warning voices of the sane halves are ignored, downplayed, "finger pointed" at as "unpatriotic," or as being "in bed with the enemy", and many other forms of equally "rhyming history." It is what they spend billions on every year so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching to the jolly tunes.
The systems and corporations came in droves for SYSTEMIC EXPANSION and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE...
A little piece land with own laws over here for a little American/NATO base.
A nice little piece of capital over there, of the Nordstream project.
A piece of the Panama Canal ...just "wanted back" mind you.
A tiny sliver of those Ukrainian/Caucasian raw materials.
A nice little chunk of real estate, in the Levant
Just a little little bit of a percentage of political influence EVERYwhere.
And, let's not forget, ALL of Greenland... ALL of it...
The meddling created by the own proactive divide-and-rule strategy of power then results in effects:
Imperialistic meddling is always a CAUSE to which there will be a resulting EFFECT.
10
-
10
-
The "divide and rule"-strategy or technique has a pretty long history in the Levant, which had been a desirable crossroads of civilizations ever since ancient times (land route connecting continents/systems) with changing POWERS implementing the strategy as time passed. If one wishes to understand history, one first has to familiarize oneself with strategies of power. If not, one WILL get misguided, distracted, and fooled into cheering for "imperialism", even whilst thinking one is cheering for "freedom and democracy", or something else. Note that in order to play the game of "divide and rule", it needs a geographical/physical advantage, and POWER.
No POWER, no games...
In a more worldly sense. As far as systems and strategies are concerned. The 15 million people initially injected as "anchor state" (strategy) into the Levant, by an empire after WW1, are not going to rule/dominate the Levant.
Such a small number is always a "tail", and not the "dog".
The tail (lesser power) does NOT wag the dog (greater power). That is just an easily chanted slogan, created by the dividers, in search of scapegoats for the slogan chanters/banner wavers. It is a myth and a tool of deception and misdirection, by those who truly wish to rule by division. The ruling class. The elites, or the "1%-ters", the "$uperhubs", or whatever one wishes to call such a headless mass, united by their interests (§§§footnote).
In the real world, it is the "dogs" of POWER, who "wag the tails".
Modern Israel is a tool, once created by an Empire for a specific purpose, just like every other ME country was created for a purpose.
The sooner ALL these divided Semites in the Levant realize this, the better it will be for ALL Semites. They are ALL tools.
As a guideline how the "divide and rule"-strategy can be defeated, the first tentative examples of African leaders finally realizing the POWER of the "divide and rule"-technique is out there. This technique, same as 100 and 200 and 2,000 years ago uses a multitude of "carrots and sticks": the outside POWER mis/uses differences in race, religion, ethnicity, and uses the appeals to the leaders here in the form of "greed", personal advantages, or promises, or using the "shame game", etc. Whatever works in the desired area in which "disunity" is the goal. The example of African leaders standing united, and repulsing such outside attempts, can be studied. The initial positive observation, is not final though: the "dividers" will return. They will come back, and push, and push, and push until the first weakness appears, which will then be exploited...
"Divide and rule" is in politics and international relations, what nukes are in warfare.
AGE OF EUROPEAN IMPERIALISM
Israel, the artificial entity, had never been created by a god, never mind what the idealogues proclaim. In antiquity it was created by strategists, employing amongst other strategies, the "divide and rule"-technique to inch forward towards the "milk and honey"-land belonging to others already living there, while being the favorites of a god in an ideology. Thousands of years later during WW1 it was recreated by a very worldly empire, Great Britain, employing the "divide and rule"-technique. The goals and aims of this empire, acting in conjunction with France, tacidly nodded of by Washington DC, were very earthly: to rule, and keep the POWER it had amassed as a result of a previous lucky GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE vis-a-vis its European neighbors. For the British Empire starting around 1917: to use mass-immigration as a tool of division as they did all over their empire. Lines were drawn, and rulers imposed onto the people living here, who were never asked as a collective. Whether it was the White Highlands (Kenya) or Palestine, these white immigrants brandished their newly found power (as the favorites of an empire). In other cases (Fiji, for example) mass-immigration of other subjects were used to cause disruption within the original indigenous power structures. This power of the hegemony was transformed into pieces of paper (deeds) granting CHOSEN FAVORITES property in a promised land, and these new favorites/best friends in the form of mass-immigration would then, in return, protect the British Empire's interests. In the Levant, it was the very precious Suez Canal from the threat of potential attacks by land armies, from the north...because the British Empire did as it always did. Create useful tools in a "barrier state" (strategy), for its own perceived potential future gain. That of the automatic ally (strategy). If the Levant was attacked by a northern empire on the way to Egypt/Suez as per Heartland Theory (1904), via land routes where the mighty Royal Navy was useless, the "poor little friends" which had previously been strategically set up as homelands/states, would be defended. Of course, because the Empire cared so much about "poor people"...
The motivations for empires in the beginnings at this watershed of history for the Levant (1917) can be linked to the motivations for empires today.
TODAY
Whatever the outcome in Israel/Gaza in our immediate future might be, the dividers in Washington DC have already achieved their aim. The last "gift" these dividers in Washington DC gave their favorites, was East Jerusalem (Trump admin), simply handed over without asking the people who actually lived here what they wanted for themselves. Eurasia is divided into multiple "teams", all arguing with each other and pointing fingers, playing the blame game, unable to unite into greater powers. Today: The sooner ALL these "divided" people realize this, the better it will be for ALL the people. War is a great divider. Such divisions last generations. "Divide and rule" extends into each and every mind. Line-drawing does not only take place on maps, but it also goes straight though your Limbic system (brain/appeal to emotion) and from there straight through entire societies.
THE DAWN OF MODERN CIVILIZATIONS
In the Bible, the original divider of mankind in the Levant, was the figure God (Old Testament).
Whether one believes in this god or not, doesn't matter. In a systemic analysis, Jesus the philosopher (New Testament) actually OPPOSED his (so-called) father's form of authoritarian and often brutal rule (Old Testament). In antiquity, the figure God had used the "divide and rule"-strategy on and over the rest of mankind in the Levant. From the position of ultimate POWER, God had chosen favorites, and throughout the Old Testament (as a historical series of events) continued to make rulings and grant miracles in the favor of his chosen. Yikes, God even nuked Sodom and Gomorrha in order to make living space for his chosen (lol, just kidding). On a sideline, also the invention of propaganda: These inhabitants were the collective "evil outgroup", who also collectively "deserved to die".
Whatever...
Further indicators: God favored "ruler types" (Old Testament/top down rule) like Moses. No doubt, in a realist analysis, strategists like Moses were most likely the inventor of the SINGLE HEGEMONY as a SOLE God with the all seeing eye, to create unity. To avoid people from creating a miriad of depictions and minor gods, and get constantly distracted by a plethora of personal favorite foreign gods in the lands they were dispered into, and who would end up dancing around idols...
Poor Moses must have been frustrated by his followers' insatiable appetite for entertainment, divisive squabbles, tribal infighting, family fueds, and other distractions from the endsieg: the land of milk and honey they all dreamed of as settler colonists on the move.
THE ROMAN EMPIRE
According to the legacy, Jesus approached commoners (New Testament/bottom up unity).
The polar opposite of God of the Old Testament (see above).
Around the year "0", The Roman Empire had the POWER in the Med, and it had amassed this power as a result of a previous lucky GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE vis-a-vis its neighbors in the Mediterranean. A technological and organisational edge gave it that slight advantage of reach: While it could "reach" all neighbors in the Med, these neighbors could not "reach" Rome, at least for the time being. That would change later as the balance of power shifted.
Around the year 0, one can consider Jesus as the "prototype Hippy" teaching love and charity, in other words the Monty Python take on the observed events, or one can see him as a talented strategist who intended to take on the might of the Roman Empire. Actual evidence then favors a combination of both (the "peaceful revolution" against the Roman Empire): crimes against the state, like sedition, were usually punished by crucifiction. The irony of the Roman Empire killing Jesus, is that they later took the resulting religion as a state religion, in efforts to bring unity to the crumbling empire, by replacing a miriad of gods and resorting to the "one god" as single hegemony over all (state religion). The intention to use an ideology to create unity was too little, too late to save a crumbling empire...
Whether such events mentioned on clay tablets, or scrolls, were actual events, or inventions by philosophers to explain strategies, or simply true at some core and then added onto as the ages passed, to become the well-honed stories we read today, is not even important in any systemic analysis. As I always say, historians and politicians can hardly agree on what happened last week, let alone 2,000 years ago, or 4,000 years ago.
Therefore, best to reduce everything to the tier of "systems/strategies" in order to discover what really happened.
THE END
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
So Arthur Harris was "just following orders" I heard...
We in the west shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win). In other words, just as much Lend-Lease as needed, but not enough for the commie to storm all the way into Central Europe.
We should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary to aid D-Day, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why shouldn't it have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion?
Because we owed Stalin nothing.
Not single Jeep and not a single Studebaker truck, carrying commies into Central Europe by the millions.
Not a single drop of blood.
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
So our leaders sacrificed own soldiers, own resources, and millions of own dollars, to hand over half the world to the commies. Only to end up fighting them in the other half for the next fifty years. Korea, Vietnam, the ME. Thousands of body bags of "our boys".
Rather silly to "help Stalin" don't you think, if we could have just let them "slug it out to utter exhaustion, and then march over the ruins, a fate Stalin had intended for us...
Ah...smart leaders.
Too bad we didn't have any...
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
This is nothing new. For 100 years, settler colonists (Irgun, Lehi, Palmach, etc.) cooperating with the hegemon, carried out such practices of harassment, trying to coerce the original inhabitants to flee so they could occupy the land.
A hundred years ago the British Empire dispatched psychos like Orde Wingate (Special Night Squads) who took pleasure in random shootings, or waterboarding opposition to the British Empire in oil, sending the tortured back to their villages to report about the actions of their oppressors.
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron Bushell have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined.
Don't delay.
Start today.
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
1:05 Keyword "Regime change".
WW1 was the biggest US "regime change operation" in history.
"If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler."
Winston Churchill, 26th April 1946
That short statement practically has "regime change" written all over it.
That short statement also makes it clear what happens if one removes the gatekeepers (monarchy) of a political system from power, which then opens the door for all kinds of ideologues.
They thought they could throw out the monarchs, and morph Germany into becoming "more like us" (old Roman technique of power), and there would be no consequences.
Whatever they thought, one thing is clear: US think tanks who wrote the 14 Points Speech KNEW they were far enough away from Europe not to have to face any consequences should their own suggestions combined with the invariably following top-down implementations result in blowback (causality).
So what had led Churchill to make such a statement? As part of the 14-Point Plan, Wilson demanded that Germany de-throne Wilhelm II, before any peace talks could begin. The Allies also refused a German delegation as part of the peace talks in 1919. WW1 was the USA's hitherto biggest "regime change operation" (Germany). Because here is what they tell you is history in thousands and thousands of books and docs: the "German people" or "German leaders" were the ones who "forced Wilhelm II into exile, or " forced the autocrats to abdicate because they were angry" or variations of that. Here is what they (usually) don't say (lie by omission): That it was the own side which had previously coerced other German leaders like Max von Baden into forcing the German government out of office, because that was a condition for armistice negotiations to take place.
Here is the timeline of events:
1) Coerce German leaders to topple the current Berlin government.
2) German leaders realizing there was no alternative to stop the war, topple the current government.
3) Omit step 1) for the "narrative of WW1", or pretend it never happened, and then "write history" that pleases the own feelings by simply pinning the flag on the timeline, saying that the history of that event started on "day x".
In order to find out what really happened, an interested history fan would have to delve into very specific books that cover the entire series of events, to find out the details. But, who does that?
From the primary source:
"The President would deem himself lacking in candor did he not point out in the frankest possible terms the reason why extraordinary safeguards must be demanded. Significant and important as the constitutional changes seem to be which are spoken of by the German Foreign Secretary in his note of the 20th of October, it does not appear that the principle of a government responsible to the German people has yet been fully worked out or that any guarantees either exist or are in contemplation that the alterations of principle and of practice now partially agreed upon will be permanent. Moreover, it does not appear that the heart of the present difficulty has been reached. It may be that future wars have been brought under the control of the German people, but the present war has not been; and it is with the present war that we are dealing. It is evident that the German people have no means of commanding the acquiescence of the military authorities of the empire in the popular will; that the power of the King of Prussia to control the policy of the empire is unimpaired; that the determining initiative still remains with those who have hitherto been the masters of Germany. Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action, the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the world do not and cannot trust the word of those who have hitherto been the masters of German policy, and to point out once more that in concluding peace and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany."
Source: International Notes: Diplomatic Notes, Prepared By Allan Westcott, Ph. D., Instructor, U. S. Naval Academy, November 1918 Proceedings Vol. 44/11/189
Washington DC power mongers employ old Roman techniques of power, including the "morphing" of systems which favor the own ideological expansionist goals, and one of these old Roman techniques is divide-and-rule. In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Not only Germany was divided, but also Europe was divided with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in popular narratives composed mostly of "being friends" even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, so by 1945 the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@MrPoot-cx9ez You are obviously struggling with your hatred of children, trapped in a dictatorial regime...
So, allow me to help you out...
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/concentration-camps-1933-39
In 1937, there were 4 ( four ) concentration camps, for political enemies, mainly "commies" (or people so-termed at the time).
The conditions here, were similar to Guantanamo. So, nothing wrong with that, in the context of the times . Correct?
Because a few years earlier, hordes of commie street fighters had made the streets of dozens of German cities unsafe. with plunder and random violence...cough, cough..."real terrorists".
So.
What was wrong with the average German thinking that it was about time to "get tough" on those commie crooks?
9
-
@MrPoot-cx9ez My background is military.
"Revenge" might be a great motivator, but it is a terrible basis for a policy or military doctrine.
In end effect, Churchill sold British interests, because he couldn't see the big picture...
The big picture is that the USA's goal was destroying the British Empire, and they fought for their interests (global domination, Google The American Century).
On the other side, was Stalin, who fought for the communist takeover of the world (Google Comintern, and the Comunist Manifest).
Churchill finally woke up in 1944, and realized that the world was being turned into a 2 power system, and came up with Unthinkable...too late...
The resources of Empire had been squandered on a dumb military strategy of "flattening Germany".
You see, David. Churchill didn't understand the British Policy of Balance of Power for the continent, as a tool to ensure the safety of the British Empire. That meant, ensuring the balance of power, by avoiding the complete collapse a power one could ally with to avoid a bigger danger.
What had been done for 400 years to ensure the safety of Empire, was no longer possible in 1945, because on the continent "Alles Kaputt".
Germany kaput.
Italy kaput.
Poland, Czechoslovakia... sold off to the commies.
France, a Washington lapdog (understandable, after Mers el Kebir)
There was nobody left to ally with, and nobody to fight to uphold Empire.
Communism, and American corporate capitalism, would erode it away within a decade...
There was in fact a far better strategy possible, which I'll post below...
9
-
@MrPoot-cx9ez There was an alternative option.
It meant letting the 2 evils of the world battle it out, while staying mainly on the sidelines, only supporting the losing g side sufficiently not to collapse completely.
That way, the Eastern Front would have stabilized between Leningrad and the Black Sea somewhere.
D-Day would then have resulted in all of Europe being liberated from the west...
But here's the thing.
When Churchill finally woke up, came up with Unthinkable (in end effect, the Policy of Balance of Power), there was nothing left to "balance" the SU with.
Now, if your answer is "Empire" and "US", my answer is "lol".
Because the USA, right from the start, had the intention to turn the world into a 2-power system, and by 1945 that "2nd power" was not "Empire"...
[Google the American Century, and the newer "Project for the New American Century" or PNAC]
"Empire" had exhausted itself, was in financial ruin, and would come in handy as a post-war "lapdog". The Suez Crisis made that perfectly clear = Washington whistled, the Lapdogs (London/Paris/Tel Aviv) cowered...
If you really understand global power, and geostrategy, you'd realize that appart from the German cities, and German people, that there was a third "victim" of the financially ruinous, and hugely ineffective, "Area Bombing Policy (carpet bombing of city centers)...The British Empire.
After WW2 it lacked the strength to stand up the Communism and US corporate imperialism.
The key to saving the Empire was change: turning it into a "Pound block of equals", and protecting it with a strong and united central Europe.
Churchill, was an advocate of the EU, but like conservatives, propagated it 20 years too late.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million gaining at the expense of billions, as the USA/collective West has done these past 500 years.
I'm sure Chinese and Russian leaders will imnediately agree to this, and our US/collective West will do as they've always done: pretend to wish to "sign up for it" overtly and ostentatiously (doves), but use deception to torpedo such attempts of global equillibrium covertly (hawks).
Good cops (neolibs) and bad cops (neocon).
This is divide-and-rule.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Venezuela is just a pixel of the Big Picture.
The marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into.
Eastern Europe.
Balkans.
Black Sea.
Caucasus region.
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
How old is this game called "marching empire"? Answer: Old, very old...
For the "fighting for freedom and democracy"-crowd...
In 1914 the Puerto Rican house of deputies voted unanimously for independence from the United States.
Thereupon, the United States declared it unconstitutional. Wilson (Footnote) made Puerto Rican citizens of the United States without asking them and without their consent. Puerto Ricans thereafter had to buy everything from US-flagged shipping corporations, which made everything in Puerto Rico more expensive and made American shipping companies and trading companies rich: the price was paid by poor people in Puerto Rico, whose declared independence was RULED unfavourably by the "eternal freedumb and eternal democracy"-lovers. Later, the Jones–Shafroth Act of 1917, forced Puerto Ricans to join the US army via the detour of the "granted US citizenship." Note, this as not decided BY Puerto Rico's leaders, but FOR them. How convenient. You are forced into the trenches of a collectively racist USA ("Jim Crow"-style divide-and-rule system of domestic rule) taking away your freedom to live life in independence, but don't expect any great rewards apart from the muddy trench. Even today, Puerto Rico is still the "pool of cheap labor" for their stronger neighbour USA.
"We cannot develop our own economy. In the old days we were drafted into your wars even when we had nothing against the people we were fighting! I want talk about the fact that Spain already granted us autonomy in 1897 which was the same relationship that Canada has with Britain but since we are not white, we don't count, and there are many more crimes the USA has done!"- Albizu Campos. The "Arminius" of the Caribbean. No, one cannot develop if one is in the shadow of an empire which constantly siphons off your most capable individuals ("brain drain").
Just like 2000 years ago when Arminius was trained to become "Roman" in order to aid the expansion of the Roman Empire, so was Campos. The strategy of using tools for systemic expansion is as old as civilizations. The "empire" uses such "morphed locals" (strategy of power) as tools to further the goals of the empire by giving them all kinds of benefits in return for going against the interests of their fellow inhabitants. A few like Campos however see the light, and turn against those who wish to downgrade them to a subservient status and role within the empire. After periods of great upheavals, often the results of the own US top-down imposition (wars, invasions, sanctions), many leave their homelands resulting in such brain drain, analogous to many Central- and South American countries which are similarly kept from economic prosperity by the wars the empire wages in these outer regions of the own core territories. The empire favours some, and sets these up against others: divide-and-rule. Exactly those people a region of the planet needs to prosper, leave the rimlands around the empire to go to the "empire" which created the poverty and duress in the first place. For reference, as exemplary: Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, New York, on Thursday, 20 June 2024 (available for free as PDF-file). Similar behaviour by other powers in their "backyards" is of course correctly criticized, but the own behaviour narrativized in flowery language. Of course these empires are either ALL wrong, or ALL right. How the apologist wriggles and writhes about trying to twist wrongs into "rights" simply exposes the various biases of the advocate.
It's a subsection of divide-and-rule, to keep regions in the periphery "down" (in power) and "out" of the decision-making processes which affect them in geopolitical terms. All the talk about freedoms like "freedom of speech" etc, means nothing. The ONLY thing which counts is how powerful the opposition gets. If one is weak, one is allowed to whine ones ails on the soap box, but as soon as one gains in power and numbers, the "empire" shows its true face. Camps, t0rture centres, terror campaigns, terror bombing, drone wars, regime change ops, subversive warfare, smear campaigns, you name it, the empire uses it.
Those who stand up to division and subjection, soon become "the enemy". In both cases (Arminius/Campos) the "trained tools" became turncoats and agitated against the empire, using their knowledge to good effect. Arminius, more successfully than Campos because the region (Central Europe) offered the means for an armed resistance (forested, excellent territory for guerrilla warfare and armed resistance), whereas the Caribbean (small isolated and CONTROLLABLE islands) which was under the boot of much stronger US/European powers, it was obviously not possible because this rimland (South-, Central America, Caribbean) was already divided, and ruled over. In both cases, the "empire" only understands the "language" it uses itself.
Don't expect many Americans to care much. Their life is mostly/partly still good, based on keeping their periphery "down" and "out" of power. That is true even today. The "system" trains "finger pointers" to sneer and make fun of their weak neighbours, kept weak and in a state of permanent duress, and their well-paid MSM-talking-head-tools point the way... The "good life" and the "good ol' days" when they super-prospered and which they collectively long back to, was not coincidental, but planned.
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other with revolving "patterns of relationships" (aka divide-and-rule), then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet while these were still weak and recovering from the divisions created. From the 1950s thru 1980s the USA/collective West reigned supreme, decreasing in strides after that.
Note, that this observation has nothing to do with the majority of American citizens who are just as good/bad as anybody else on the planet. The sane half of their society is powerless to implement changes, since the system is fixed in place (pyramidal structure of top-down power). I've spoken to many people from The Philippines, South Korea, Puerto Rico, and many other places who didn't have a CLUE about their true history, and how the "empire" they worship and still bow down to is actually the historical CAUSE of everything they are suffering at the moment (geopolitics/grand strategy). All they learn about in the curriculum is the "rah, rah 'merica freedom and democracy"-bs. but they are not taught where they fit into the BIG PICTURE as individuals, and as islands/peninsulas/regions on the map (geopolitics/grand strategy) which are either useful or useless in the heads of the strategists.
Today: A new era IS arriving. Millions of global inhabitants are no longer dependent on their libraries, their TVs or their own politicians and leaders, and can find out what happened for themselves.
In the BIG PICTURE of the marching route of the empire, Puerto Rico was simply a small stepping stone. Look at a map, of how this "marching route" went from the US East Coast with its "old money" and industries, via the Caribbean and Colombia (carved up on the map as "Panama", Panama Canal Zone, and Columbia) in order to secure US interests, and then this "marching route" continued across the Pacific, as similarly annexed/captured territories of Hawaii (previously independent), and ex-Spanish territories like the Philippines and Guam. From there, via the later McCollum Memorandum, it led straight to Pearl Harbor after their "old friend Japan" was dumped after WW1 (1922), left with nobody to ally with.
The same "marching empire" big picture is also the strategic reality all over the world. Into the "the West", into South America, then into the Pacific, then into West Asia, into Africa, all causing resistance movements... and now (post 1990s) ...into Eurasia, never "satiated". Bismarck, about the rich being "satiated" before the populace is "fed up" with all the forever wars...
For a slightly light-hearted approach to "countering the marching empire", search for "FBI uncovers Al-Qaeda plot to just sit back and enjoy collapse of USA" (The Onion). No, this is not a joke or satire, but an actual strategy of power. Just sit back and watch on while your enemy collapses on multiple tiers, all the while everybody is viciously pointing fingers at who is to blame. Literally choking on their own blame games, while their leaders fiddle about on the rooftops...
Me: ROTFL, learnt ...NOTHING.
In their effort to "extend" others, they are actually extending themselves, uniting all against them, and are too rich, proud, hectoring, squibbing, to realize.
Footnote
The Wilson admin used the multiple tier/multiple hurdle/multiple cut-off technique of power, and made Puerto Rican citizens of the United States without asking them and without their consent. This technique means that if "they" are not stopped here, some other tier will stop "them" on the next level.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. The USA could afford to wait. Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
"The term "banana wars" was popularized in 1983[2] by writer Lester D. Langley. Langley wrote several books on Latin American history and American intervention, including: The United States and the Caribbean, 1900–1970 and The Banana Wars: An Inner History of American Empire, 1900–1934. His work regarding the Banana Wars encompasses the entire United States tropical empire, which overtook the western hemisphere, spanning both Roosevelt presidencies. The term was popularized through this writing and portrayed the United States as a police force sent to reconcile these warring tropical countries, lawless societies and corrupt politicians; essentially establishing U.S. reign over tropical trade. Hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Latin American civilians were killed in the Banana Wars."
Spot the imperialist MO?
The "just sending a few cops, to restore peace" in the hood of our "backyards"?
The "they are all corrupt, but we are squeaky clean, so they must be stopped"-narrative?
The pointing finger and the associated "waging finger" is a dead giveaway of every other imperialist, acting under the guise of "creating a better world".
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
The question posed to Asians (mainly Chinese and Indians/citizens within these borders) remains the same as during the era of imperialism.
The obfuscators and dividers will use the same techniques in reasoning as they use in politics: they will "hop around" on criteria, causing dissention in debates on the micro level (society), in the same way the power players "hop around" on entire countries/governments/capital cities/key politicians in geopolitics on the macro level...
The technique of "divide and rule"...
Hop over here, hop over there, whatever standpoint brings the own short-term advantage, because THE POWER has the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of not having to suffer consequences from it's own actions.
The question posed to all Asians remains.
Whether they can see that they are in the same positions they were in 200 and 300 years ago.
The dividers come with "promises" which they mostly don't intend keeping, or offer "treaties" (in which these dividers themselves hold the geographical advantage of distance), make all kinds of excuses why the dividers don't keep their promises, or why the dividers don't suffer the same percentage of harmfull effects in times of crisis/war as the "chosen ones". These promises are very enticing to power players, and offer the prospect of glory and achievement to the side the promises are made to...
Anthony Blinken making some Indians FEEL***(see footnote) very proud with repeated offers of NATO membership, just like previous US admins made such promises to the Ukriane, which no doubt made many Ukrainians FEEL very proud, and then the dividers with the geographical advantage, subsequently citing all kinds of "difficulties" why such "pwomises" then cannot be effected in a short timespan.
Meanwhile, exposing the "Ukraine"/proxy to extreme danger as the feet were dragged and dragged and dragged...
Of course, in the game called divide and rule, it is not the fact THAT it is a ridiculous offer, in view of recent events in the Ukraine exposing the danger of such folly, but rather the fact THAT such an offer is repeated. The fact THAT the offer is on the table, already causes mistrust/dissention amongst ASIAN neighbors.
Of course, if India refuses, the divider (of Asia), Washington DC can simply go to China and "promise Taiwan" to Beijing (signed away) in return for a deal, to surround Russia. The potential for "divide and rule" rests on the side with the geographical advantage, as long as the targets for division do not unite, specifically with a comprehensive Asian security agreement.
The question to Asians remains the same.
What are they going to do to create a SINGLE HEGEMONY (alliance) in East Asia, in order to speak with a united voice, against the POWER of division.
BRICS is not enough.
Any other deal or treaty, or even the "UN's" laws and the "rules based order" cannot stand up to the POWER of divide and rule.
It needs a comprehensive security agreement for all of those in the FRACTURE ZONE 4 (stretching from North Pole, via Japan, Taiwan, through Thailand, the Indian subcontinent, towards the Middle East).
If no comprehensive security agreement is achieved, mutually beneficial for all, then simply wait for history to return ("rhyme")...
Or are Indian leaders like... first they came for Russia, but I did not care because I was not Russian. Then they came for China, but I did not care because I was not Chinese, and even saw an advantage for myself (economy) if China got "carved up" and weakened...
Indian leaders: It'll be great, if WE can CONTROL the WATER flowing into China, from Tibet...such tempting "offers" and promises...
"Around 1900" repeating for Tibet.
Finally though, if everything is burning, divided, in quagmire of revolution and war, and Asia the "new Middle East" (as unfolded after the 1882 British invasion, followed closely by "Sir Lawrance the divider of Arabs"-style Lordships), finger pointing, and harsh language in the neighboring state, then who will speak up for India when the dividers come for you?
DESIRABLE OUTCOME in any divide and rule system: The dividers will subsequently have the "upper hand/higher ground" (leverage) of POWER for all future negotiations with the resulting "statelets".
The secret towards more Indian "power" lies in the continued "power" of its neighbors, not these neighbors' weakness.
* The appeal to emotion
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
The concept of an "occupation" seems to be hard to grasp.
The landgrabs after the 6-Day War were illegal according to international law. Waging a "preventive war" or a "war of choice" was not illegal, but all the subsequent landgrabs were.
According to international law, these territories are therefore still "occupied".
" ...We had three wars which we fought without an alternative. The first, the war of independence, which began on Nov. 30, 1947 and lasted until January 1949 ...The second war of no alternative was the Yom Kippur War and the war of attrition that preceded it ... Our other wars were not without an alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice ... In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation." -- Menachem Begin, Aug. 8, 1982, Israeli National Defense College
Begin stated clearly that Israel had fought three wars before which it had a "choice," meaning Israel started the wars. In legal terms, this is known as "preventive war," which is not illegal. However, taking land against international law after such a war, is illegal. Note that fluffy language like "in the noblest sense of the word," highlighted above, is not a legal term but gangsta talk.
Israel is still the occupying power.
That is what the law states. One can whine about laws, but that doesn't change a law. Everything one can come up with in defense of Israel, will automatically mean apologia for the occupying force. Everything one states, either ignores or apologizes for the stronger side in a conflict, which is enforcing an illegal occupation.
Every conversation which does not stress the fact that one side is the occupier, the other side the resistance, is biased towards imperialism.
Every news report must start with explaining who the occupation power is, so as not to confuse the timeline.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
The necessity to balance power is a long-standing reality amongst political actors and strategists. The logic and reasoning fill a ton of books, journals, theses, and articles, elaborately exploring the theory, based on the necessity to create an equilibrium between the powers or suffer consequences for not abiding by such logic. The issue is not that this age-old proven logic has been written down, the issue is that one can make people believe that balancing power is fallacious, and make people believe that a few chosen "good guys" should hold the keys to a peaceful world as hegemony. A few examples are in a footnote.
What the world, and specifically Europe, lacks is wise practical leaders. Phronesis which is wisdom in determining political standards, practical understanding, and sound judgment. It comes from the Latin phronēsis, from Greek phrónēsis, meaning "practical wisdom, prudence in government and public affairs".
Around the year 1900, technology rapidly bridged distances as the planet shrunk due to new inventions, and the Spanish-American War showed what would happen to European empires when they became "sick men." These were the same words European powers used to mock their own neighbours in the "Old World", as they greedily carved out little chunks of the "sick man" Ottoman Empire for themselves, so they obviously knew what would happen to themselves when they weakened. Dog-eat-dog.
Europeans are born losers as long as they remain divided, until they figure this out.
Note here, a little detail most cannot see because of their compartmentalized brains: BOTH the Ukraine and Russia are in Europe, and Russia is also in Eurasia.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures" (see the recent WH exchange). This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021). All under the narrative of the marching being "voluntary (state sovereignty) actions" by the new best fwiends...
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Henry Kissinger stated Washington DC's policy for the American Century: "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests." That simply means empires don't have friends, and if your little nation is no longer useful, it'll be written off with a few thoughts and prayers. The hegemon will wiggle and slime their way from "victory" to victory, as long as everyone else does not unite. That is how the strategy of divide-and-rule works.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others.
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
Washington DC and "American interests" have already "won". See Nordstream: American corporations buying up the ruins, pivoting to Russia, and when the "peace" is reinstated in some future, a US corporation will own the infrastructure, siphon off profit as middleman, and Washington DC will CONTROL this future resource flow into Europe de facto and de jure...
In a graphic depiction of systems the "divide-and-rule"-world under which division rules, is diametrically opposed to the logic of a balance of powers.
--------------------------------------
Footnote:
Nicholas Spykman: "...political equilibrium is neither a gift of the gods nor an inherently stable condition. It results from the active intervention of man, from the operation of political forces. States cannot afford to wait passively for the happy time when a miraculously achieved balance of power will bring peace and security. If they wish to survive, they must be willing to go to war to preserve a balance against the growing hegemonic power of the period."
An American, perfectly explaining, in the "nutshell" why "WW1 and WW2" came about, and why Europeans are "divided eternal fools" until they figure this one out.
John Mearsheimer: "...status quo powers are rarely found in world politics, because the international system creates powerful incentives for states to look for opportunities to gain power at the expense of rivals, and to take advantage of those situations when the benefits outweigh the costs."
Trump America wants to gut the losers Ukraine, like Christmas turkey, because they failed in "extending Russia" and are now weak enough to become "corporate lunch" (see "blink blink Blinken" quote a few months ago about "lunchtime" and what happens if "you are not at the table").
Kenneth Waltz: "As nature abhors a vacuum, so international politics abhors unbalanced power."
War is a great way to create "vacuums". Once war creates a vacuum, it can be "filled" (power).
Hans Morgenthau: "The aspiration for power on the part of several nations, each trying either to maintain or overthrow the status quo, leads of necessity, to a configuration that is called the balance of power and to policies that aim at preserving it."
It is those who practice DIVIDE AND RULE who abhor the status quo, and wish to change it.
Christopher Layne: "Great powers balance against each other because structural constraints impel them to do so."
Apart from these fairly modern examples, the logic that belies this realization is thousands of years old.
No strategist in any of the capital cities can claim "I didn't know."
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@strugat Actually...no.
Hitler had given the military strict orders to withdraw at even the slightest hint of resistance.
And what then?
What should GB and France had done if the Nazis had withdrawn back behind the Rhine?
Note here, that this would have taken the Wehrmacht only a few hours, so that it would have been accomplished before the British were over the Channel.
Furthermore, the "should have" logic ignores the international situation.
At the time, Communism was expected to be a threat.
Google the Comintern, the rise of communist parties after the 1929 Depression, the Communist Manifest, the Soviet takeover in Mongolia, the Soviet invasion of China in 1934, the massive Soviet re-armament under the 5-year plans of 1928 and 1933, Deep Battle (the first ever "Blitzkrieg" doctrine), paratroopers, the Tupolev long range bombers....do you need more?
Allied leaders at the time didn't have a time machine, to figure out how history would unfold later on.
Western leaders obviously wanted to keep the option of allying with Germany in case of any aggressive Soviet expansion into their spheres of influence...
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
This is the theory.
According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules.
According to the concept of "meaning of words" all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life, on ALL tiers, often by force, coercion, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world).
That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power).
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
The intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia (which incl. the ME), in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this desirable disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
At 53:00 minutes.
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
8
-
8
-
The attitude of "what happened 30, 50, or 100 years ago" is what tore Europe apart in wars for hundreds of years.
Let bygones be bygones, and move on.
Same as in the Balkans: after hundreds of years of wars, and "the elites" squabbling over spheres of interest, the borders today reflect the will of the people, and there is peace, stability, and widespread wealth.
Today the principle of "freedom, liberty, and self-determination" is an established basis of politics.
Let the people who live there determine their own political future.
Rather than pick up a gun, and be misused as a tool of someone else, rather use your time to advocate for a plebiscite, to determine independence or integration.
8
-
Back in the 1990s Tel Aviv was sneakily trying to introduce Apartheid, at the same time South Africa was busy ending it under international pressure. Of course, Israel was (according to imperialist logic) "doing nothing wrong"...
At the time the world was applauding South Africa as it ended Apartheid, and simultaneously the world was applauding Israel's attempt at introducing Apartheid (note: by own admission see §§footnote), branding it as just "trying to create peace."
Note, whilst singling out the Palestinians/Arafat as being "unreasonable" and "rejecting the Israeli olive leaf of peace...blah, blah..." as the accepted narrative of the Mainstream Media.
One cannot use history's unacceptable actions, as an excuse for current unacceptable actions.
Israel never intended for Palestinians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, "We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, ..."
[edit: the historical examples being the "Apartheid dependencies," of the "Bantustan"]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan
"... and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines ... The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term ... Jerusalem (would be) united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty ... will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev. We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth."
All the questionable clauses, eluding reality by use of the typical vague political doublespeak, have been highlighted.
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control. What that would have meant, we see today. Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city. Notice how Rabin, commonly held as a dove in politics, never used the term "full sovereign state" when he referred to this "Palestine", but the term "less than a state." Did you spot the use of [Israel's] "natural growth"? Critical question... Where to? Where would Israelis/Zionists "naturally grow" to, if there were equal neighbors, as a balanced power, which could actually stop any such Zionist settler "growth". The Jordan Valley, extends BOTH sides of the Jordan River. Now, I'm sure that was just another slip-up too, of people who don't understand simple geography. Whatever. It is fairly clear what they wanted, and there are historical examples for this: the "pool of cheap labor" within the own borders, as the concept of the "Bantustan" was for the RSA, given a little bit of "independence" to manage own affairs, but de facto/de jure powerless to stop the CONTROLLING power, intended to be Jerusalem, as Jweish capital city with the right to introduce permit laws, etc. It is literally what RSA did with their "Bantustans". Back then the people could not be fooled. They saw through the deceit, and rightfully called it out for what it was: just another Apartheid ploy to avoid the rise of political equals.
Sad reality? Today masses of fools are being mislead into praising Israel's attempted implementation of Apartheid as an attempt at peace, while at the same time denouncing a similar scheme actually implemented by the RSA in stages after WW2, as being bigotted/racist.
8
-
8
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
8
-
8
-
8
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."[end of]
America's allies and foes in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
Set up European and Eurasian nations against each other.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
8
-
8
-
"(Eternal) war is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." - 1984 (see footnote).
We in the West have allowed ourselves to be lied into this easily avoidable war (Ukraine), through our ignorance, and we are enslaved by the taxes we pay for these never-ending eternal wars. Because in the next war set up by the dividers of the world, from their assumed GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, it does not matter "who is right" and it does not even matter "who is left," loosely quoting Churchill, but rather in what state the leftovers are going to be in.
"The problem isn't a lack of money food water or land [edit: resources]. The problem is that you've given control of these things to a group of greedy psychopaths who care more about maintaining their own power than helping mankind [edit: corporations/globalists]." - Bill Hicks
The people who pull your strings, can make you deny things that can be proven, by simple observation.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"If the USA gets a cold, the rest of the world gets the flu".
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Honestly, what more is there to say?
USA: "If I get a cold, the rest of the world is going to suffer worse." This must be the most pathetic acknowledgement of subjection I've read my entire life. If your global neighbor gets an economic "cold" and you can't simply send them a get well soon card and continue with your own life unaffected, you are already in an internationalist/globalist entanglement.
If the USA votes, the rest of the world looks on in awe and anticipation (2024).
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Honestly, what more is there to say?
USA: "If Americans vote an imperialist into office, the rest of the world is going to have to deal with it." This must be the most pathetic acknowledgement of subjection I've read my entire life. If your global neighbor votes in an imperialist and a convicted slimeball into office, and you can't simply send them an "oh what a pity"-look on your face and continue with your own life unaffected, safely assured because there is a GLOBAL BALANCE OF POWER, you are already in a globalist entanglement.
Analysts should stop calling out strategies for what they are, and not claiming they are "mistakes."
If you have a geographical advantage, you don't make "mistakes" or one isn't simply a "hypocrite" but one actually implements a strategy of power, which are old proven Roman strategies.
These hypocrites face no disadvantages from being a hypocrite. It is a concerted effort of imperialism as practiced since ancient times, called divide and rule. The strategy can be proven, by observation.
This is divide and rule.
One squeezes out the alphas of another system, one slow step at a time. The March Route of the empire over time.
When there is a response, blame the side being encroached upon, and use any action by the other side as excuse for further encroachment or escalation. Can be plotted on a map.
Others take the disadvantages, leaving the side in the position of power to sweep in and gain advantages. The proxy, the age-old tool.
Ukraine/2022: A war that was NOT AVOIDED for precisely this aim: 1) get others to fight and die, 2) keep Eurasia divided.
What makes anybody think the USA wants to win in the Ukraine? It is not about winning but about division, and control. Control means the ability to siphon off enormous gains. According to the USA's long-term goals, there must be inequality in the world which favors the USA, and everybody else must bow down to the imperialist overlords of Washington DC when they come to "twist arms" (President Obama) to "do as we say." And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today. The peoples of Eurasia are still being turned against each other and then burned to ensure that this inequality remains. This is how "divide and rule/conquer" is implemented.
"Never argue with fools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ― Mark Twain.
Me: "Never argue with imperialist/globalist tools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with inexperience/naivety."
Don't expect the greedy to EVER change. Those who wish to gobble up the lions share of the world's resources, in the divide and rule setup, and think they have a "right" to these riches...
"The measure of intelligence is the ability to change." - Albert Einstein
If one cannot acknowledge what happened in the past, one cannot intelligently change in the present.
In order to save the future, we must first re-write the past.
The key to a better future, is to undo the lies and misdirection of the past.
Again, the point is clear.
Or at least, it should be.
Create a balance of powers on all tiers right up to the top tier, to balance these systems of greed out.
You (personally) will be safest, if their pschopaths and tools of the outgroup, are balanced out by our (ingroup) pschopaths and tools.
Our own psychos were never "better" than others, but simply had a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER which was employed to the own advantage.
Balance these slimy systems out, because if not there will be consequences.
This is not about history, because one cannot change the past: it is about learning lessons for the present.
The lesson of history is clear: do not argue with all types of elitists, finger-waging fools, people who think "50% of the wealth" of the world must be theirs (then allow their "below IQ ranters" to make fun of the people their systems keep "down" in the divide and rule setup, and "out" of the reach of wealth), psychos and their apologists, and all other types of systemic "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbing, carniverous" (Thomas Jefferson about the tools of imperialism).
Balance them out with an equal power. We'll see if the rising powers in East Asia, and Africa, are going to be wiser than Europeans while these "dividers" and their tools keep on turning up at their front doors, again and again.
Europeans have already failed to balance power three times.
1) around 1900
2) just after WW1
3) around 2000
(footnote)
"Allowing for the book, after all, being a parody, something like 1984 could actually happen. This is the direction the world is going in at the present time. In our world, there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. ... Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who’s helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever. The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is a simple one: don’t let it happen. It depends on you." - George Orwell
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interverence at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
§§§footnote
The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
The USA remains an imperialist state, regardless of which figurehead stays in power.
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite?
Today we see millions of followers of Islam, praying in their mosques in West Asia, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS, and 125 years ago we saw millions of followers of Christ, praying in their churches, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS.
We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces/wealth when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
>>>
The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
>>>
The people of the Americas, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people into "ingroups". In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the USA's power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it."_ Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS. Eden was a status quo divided by lies and deceit. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the two Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same gold-plated hind which sets out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, is the mirror of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0...
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets and becomes successful it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances.
8
-
8
-
If any individual starts off by saying that "Hamas/Palestinians have no rights to..." then what such individuals are actually saying is that "Nelson Mandela/non-white majority (ANC/1960s thru 1980s/Cold War) had no rights to...", and then going a bit further back, saying that "Irgun, Lehi, the Stern Gang, or the Haganah had no rights to create Israel using terrorism in the first place...", per implication (and that Israel "had no rights to choose terrorist like Ben Gurion as leaders and founding fathers"). Further back as standpoint, that the "Revolutionary USA had no "rights" to stand up to imperialism, and choose a bunch of terrorists who killed hundreds of thousands, as founding fathers (British perspective of things about the local "terrorists/revolutionaries" going against their British laws, and British sense of justice, trying to take something away from them). Whose "side" are you on, in each of these historical cases? Now, as one wise man once said :-) just "search your feelings" and you will know that your "support" depends on your own inner "feelings" or your emotions, which is exactly how IMPERIALISM works.
The circle is, again, complete.
If your standpoint is simply a dogmatic "oppose terrorists/freedom fighters" today, then you would never have supported the founding of Israel, called out by a bunch of revolutionaries in 1948, nor would you have supported the independence of the USA called out by a bunch of revolutionaries in 1776, had you lived in that epoch.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
IDF Intelligence Service report from June 1948 lists 11 factors which precipitated the exodus, listing them in order of importance as:
a. Direct hostile Jewish operations against Arab settlements. (The Haganah was the army of the Yeshuv, or Jewish community in Palestine, and was the precursor of the Israeli Defense Force, or IDF.)
b. The effect of our hostile operations on nearby Arab settlements (especially the fall of large neighboring centers).
c. Operations of the Jewish dissidents (terrorist organisations like Irgun and the Stern Gang, also known as the Irgun Tzvai Leumi, Lehi, etc.).
d. Jewish whispering operations (psy-ops) aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.
e. Expulsion orders (by Haganah/IDF).
The Israeli Intelligence Service gives an explanation re. the main factors, concluding that “without doubt, hostile (edit: own) operations were the main cause of the movement of the population”.
According to the own analyses, it was a forced expulsion, or ethnic cleansing.
8
-
8
-
8
-
...because Hasan is right.
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Training "terrorists"?
How'd that work out?
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@Sk_max-k3m To add to the above:
The decision to "area bomb" entire cities was not only immoral, but also counterproductive.
The "price tag" for London came after the war...
Logically, also fatally flawed:
Was your grandfather or or father killed by Wittmann in his Tiger tank, on that day in Normandie in 1944?
Was he killed or wounded in the Hochwald Gap, or anywhere else in Northern Europe?
Was he shot down by a Messerschmidt, or by one of the famous 88-mm guns?
If not, how about cut to ribbons by an MG-42 machine gun?
Was he shot or badly wounded by the standard German infantry rifle at the time, the Kar-98k?
At the time of the Dresden attack, the Mauser Works in Oberndorf in in the south of Germany, barely an hours flying time from the front lines at the time, was still fully functional.
It was one of the major German small arms manufactures, including the the feared MG-42, and the old-fashioned but reliable Kar-98k.
Instead of frying 25,000 or 30,000 women and kids in Dresden in February 1945, maybe the RAF should have targeted the Mauser Works.
At this point in the war, the complete destruction or serious damage to the factory would have meant thousands of machine guns and rifles would have been either directly destroyed, or indirectly lost to production. Thousands of German soldiers, still viciously defending Germany, would have been left without adequate means to do so.
At this late stage of the war, with the front lines only a few hundred miles away, there would have hardly been an incentive for the Germans to try and repair the plant, especially not if the factory had been hit successively in a fully coordinated USAAF (daylight) and RAF (nighttime) attack.
Mauser was one of the world's most famous arms manufactures of the world, yet strangley anough, it was simply forgotten.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@michaelshotts3904
Stop the emotional arguments...
Your "evil dictator" be falls into the same category of lies as every war.
Q: Which war started with a lie?
A: ALL of them...
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Let’s look at Saddam Hussein, and US meddling in THEIR world, shall we?
No more "fluffy emotions"....deal?
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Versailles was fundamentally wrong. For London, it was simply just another exercise of "balancing powers" in the "balancing powers game", according to their own self-proclaimed "right" to be the balancer.
It set up a geopolitical nightmare, which was indefensible and would continue to be flawed as long as London played "balancing powers"-games with the continent.
As long as the strongest power on the continent (Germany) always ended up as the pariah, to be "balanced out", there'd be no prospect of peace.
If one wants to be the boss, but take no responsibility, nor make legally binding commitments, then that "boss" will fail. It doesn't matter whether we are discussing the micro-level (companies, corporations), or the macro-level (states, empires).
If one has supposed "democratic values", but doesn't apply these, one will fail. Note: London simply decided by itself to be the "balancer of powers", and "decider of wars", without consulting anybody.
In a geopolitical sense Versailles was simple the effort to:
- protect the superiority of the RN re. continental powers
- effort to stop any German effort at autarky (the RN must always be in a position to be able to effect outcomes in crisis or wars)
The end effect was a disaster.
Whilst GB could (dragging along France as the junior partner) enforce the conditions on Germany, it could not enforce anything on the SU.
Yet: it still attempted to keep the strongest continental power as default "rival/enemy in war" as a matter of policy.
A contradiction which could never work, especially since it was communism which set out to "rule the world" as a matter of policy too.
London simply could never figure out that allying with the strongest continental power was the answer to their problems.
But, for that, they'd have to bury their own Policy of Balance of Power first, and make a commitment.
The key to an eternal Empire was to make changes.
1) internal changes in their own Empire (in a nutshell more freedom, liberty, self-determination)
2) external changes concerning their own "control freak"-attitude problem.
The London lords thought they could rule by division indefinitely, and they were wrong.
Others, across the Atlantic, obviously "observed calmly", and did things differently from the outset.
In peace, the American Century fanboys in Washington DC '"chose" the stronger economic alliance, rather than the weaker one.
In war, the American Century fanboys in Washington DC '"chose" the stronger military alliance (more likely to win a long war after the "short war scenario flopped in late-1914), rather than the weaker one...
Forget ancillary details.
Forget all the emotional arguments.
That is not how the people who lead us think.
They make us play 2d checkers.
They are playing 3d chess.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Versailles was, according to many historians, the "death knell" of Europe.
The ability of people to blame others for the effects of own behaviour, rather than to blame themselves for their own decisions, castes long shadows.
Individuals should avoid debates following the principles of "right/wrong" since such debates go around in circles forever. Debaters cherry-picking their "facts" and "dates." Obviously, everybody has a different concept of "right/wrong."
Instead, point out causal effects of own actions imposed, and which were NOT a result of a "round table" negotiation such as The Concert of Europe was. These decisions after the Napoleonic Wars, to create a balance of powers per mutual agreement after a major tragedy which affected all, worked amazingly well for 100 years, despite the limited wars which continued after 1815. The first step was to acknowledge the security risks of all, avoid the finger pointing at all the various hotheads escalating a limited crisis/engagement of regional character thereby escalating these into a world war, with millions of dead and millions more negatively affected.
With the Treaty of Versailles, Europe went down the drain when their leaders decided to abandon the principle of Machiavellian "fairness", and impose an IMbalance of power de jure, and thereby creating a de facto reality which was the same as pre-1914. The security concerns of a neighbour was simply ignored. The NWO was dictated onto one of the neighbours (Versailles.) This an observation based on the facts.
Why was the situation of pre-1914 recreated post-1918 at Versailles? Machiavellian fairness was thrown out the window again when one of the powers was encroached upon by an "encirclement strategy." The first encirclement took place in stages starting in the 1890s, and continued following the year 1900. After WW1 the encirclement strategy was continued again; instead of a small number of large encircling powers, there were now (enabled by the Armistice and Versailles) a larger number of smaller encirclers. As in physics, every force creates a counterforce. The intention to "keep down/encircle" a neighbour, created an effect.
The observation today is therefore that Europeans will lose again, because after 1990 this marching onto the borders, encroaching on a neighbour, ignoring constantly repeated security issues, was continued. Only this time, the neighbour "encroached upon" with an encirclement strategy was Russia. The "morphed tools" now included all Central European nations, too blinded by narratives to unite in time to avoid their own "tool status" AGAIN.
As stated in the first paragraph, individuals can argue their own personal rights/wrongs until they are blue in the face, but it is not going to protect them from the harmful causal effects of the own systemic expansive aims as implemented by the strategists in the capital cities, or by the "friends" who employ them as tools, buffer zones, marching useful idiots/innocents, or otherwise, without "round table"-consent (aka Machiavellian concept of fairness).
Beware of bowing down to the narrative spinners and framers.
How the narrative is spun in order the create a smokescreen for the hidden aims and agendas, reveals the strategists and their ulterior motives, which are the same today as 100 and 125 years ago. History does not "start" with the REaction. It starts with the actions. Pity if one lives in countries collectively too blind to see.
7
-
7
-
@kekistanimememan170 Sorry Mr Mememan, but after WW2 the British Empire imploded rather rapidly, with "a little help from a friend".
Because during WW2, British leaders had bombed the British Empire into ruin.
Apparently "flattening Germany" was a too expensive burden for a failing empire to shoulder...
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under..."third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Such a "special relationship" :-)
US historians are far more candid about how "Empire" got screwed over.
7
-
7
-
From around 56:00 mins on wards....
"What else could we have done?"
The question in itself, is already an admittance that the reality of what happened was wrong.
In other words, if the Bombing of civilians was the RIGHT thing to do, why even bother asking what else could have been done?
It is clearly dawning on more and more people, that the indiscriminate bombing of civilians was pointless, and did little to end the war.
As for the question "what else could have been done?", I can think of dozens of better things, even if one stays with the doctrine or policy of strategic bombing.
As for my contribution:
The Volkswagen factory in Wolfsburg.
During WW2, the two main variants of the Volkswagen, the Kuebelwagen and the Schwimmwagen were just what the German Army needed. They were simple, cheap, and didn't use much fuel (a vital factor for oil deprived Nazi Germany), or raw materials such as high grade steel.
They were used in the same functions as the famous US Jeep -- general purpose and often vital second line work such as recce, liaison, repair and maintenance troops for the tanks, carrying messages, and as transport for the lower forward echelons of command.
In Africa, German soldiers called it "Deutsches Kamel" (German Camel), because it was perfect for desert warfare. Again, especially because it used little fuel (difficult to transport over the Med), and had an air-cooled engine.
With around 50,000 and 15,000 built of the two versions, they were also the main vehicles in this category, and invaluable to the German side. Furthermore, the factory was also used to produce mines and torpedoes for submarines, which until mid-1943 were sinking British merchantmen by the scores.
One would think that with such potent reasons, the factory would be near the top of the list of likely targets for the bomber boys at Bomber Command.
As a plus point, the Volkswagen factory lay far away from any of the formidable centers of the German air defense network, and along the easy to locate Mittellandkanal (waterway). Perfect, for Ralph Cochrane's Pathfinder Mosquitoes...
Conclusion? Destroying this factory would have much simpler than taking on more formidable targets, such as big city centers.
Assertion? Destroying this factory would have played a vital role in undermining the fighting potential and mobility of the German armed forces.
Volkswagen was never attacked in force, and only minor attempts were directed at this exposed factory. It survived the war with only minor damage. Production continued until almost the end of the war, because other targets had a higher priority.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
...because Hasan is right.
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Training "terrorists"?
How'd that work out?
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Divide and rule.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
There are examples of the "division of Europe" on several levels and an advantage for the "alpha". These examples are not isolated cases, but form a pattern in a political game (in Geopolitics/Grand Strategy = avoid the unity of the "others", because unity = strength).
Strategy during the Cold War: Just like Japan on the other "side" of the SU, Germany was "allowed" to grow more during the Cold War: the "masters of the world" in Washington DC looked happily at the "German miracle" (1950-90s) as they encircled the SU.
The Cold War is over.
Today, Germany must now shrink in order to adapt to the "new order".
From now on, the "new encirclers" (Poland, Ukraine, etc.) must grow (see "Intermarium Eastern Europe"), and German growth must end...
The "Masters of the World" have commanded...
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interverence at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
§§§footnote
The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
7
-
The concept of an "occupation" seems to be hard to grasp.
The landgrabs after the 6-Day War were illegal according to international law. Waging a "preventive war" or a "war of choice" was not illegal, but all the subsequent landgrabs were.
According to international law, these territories are therefore still "occupied".
" ...We had three wars which we fought without an alternative. The first, the war of independence, which began on Nov. 30, 1947 and lasted until January 1949 ...The second war of no alternative was the Yom Kippur War and the war of attrition that preceded it ... Our other wars were not without an alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice ... In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation." -- Menachem Begin, Aug. 8, 1982, Israeli National Defense College
Begin stated clearly that Israel had fought three wars before which it had a "choice," meaning Israel started the wars. In legal terms, this is known as "preventive war," which is not illegal. However, taking land against international law after such a war, is illegal. Note that fluffy language like "in the noblest sense of the word," highlighted above, is not a legal term but gangsta talk.
Israel is still the occupying power.
That is what the law states. One can whine about laws, but that doesn't change a law. Everything one can come up with in defense of Israel, will automatically mean apologia for the occupying force. Everything one states, either ignores or apologizes for the stronger side in a conflict, which is enforcing an illegal occupation.
Every conversation which does not stress the fact that one side is the occupier, the other side the resistance, is biased towards imperialism.
Every news report must start with explaining who the occupation power is, so as not to confuse the timeline. @Knowallwithmyphone
7
-
7
-
@MrPoot-cx9ez First query:
The answer to the question posed by the first comment, of it being "unjustified" to start wars.
I agreed with that, and posted a link to the invasion of Iraq, a war not sanctioned by international consensus, and a "war of choice" for the USA and a few political lapdogs...
So, obviously, if every German citizen is personally liable for the damage caused by the war started by their government, then also every US citizen is liable for the damage caused in Iraq in 2003...
Same thing.
The Jesus comment at the bottom, points at the obvious sarcasm of my comment.
So.
You start a war, you pay?
Can't have your cake and eat it now, can we?
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Start pulling the rug from underneath their feet...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
How geopolitics links the wars in the Ukraine and Palestine.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million gaining at the expense of billions, as the USA/collective West has done these past 500 years.
I'm sure Chinese and Russian leaders will imnediately agree to this, and our US/collective West will do as they've always done: pretend to wish to "sign up for it" overtly and ostentatiously (doves), but use deception to torpedo such attempts of global equillibrium covertly (hawks).
Good cops (neolibs) and bad cops (neocon).
This is divide-and-rule.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
PART II
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
-----------------------------------
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
§§§footnote
If you wish to know more about exactly how the British Empire was "being dismantled," respond...
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favorite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the lead-up to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power, in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states with a GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION, and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around.
Whatever...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of what some "experts" proclaim, the logic of the "bomber will always get through" of the 1930s, is repeated today, and these various types of nukes will always get through in sufficient amounts to wipe any power off the map. Even if it survives as state or country, it will no longer be a world power. All it needs is sufficient numbers of MIRVs in order to sacrifice some (incl. duds to attract/distract/overwhelm the air defense), so that the mass of the rest will reach their intended targets. So the "experts" tell you their Patriots will stop them. These Patriots and other missiles and air defense systems can be overcome by implementing a very simple programmable and unjam-able multiple-layered enertia-guided and therefore unstoppable attack, as first-strike, and the first incoming Russian nukes, stationed just 15 minutes flight-time away, will act as multiple air burst to wipe out any attempt to intercept them in the radius of 100 miles, and the following strikes in their wake a minute later will mostly get through. Unlike 50, 100, 0r 200 years ago there WILL be a price to pay for pushing, pushing and pushing, until something snaps. For WHEN it "snaps" it won't be like last time with victory parades, and lotsa medals...
Keep on poking the bear.
Get the Ukraine to try and blind the Russian early-warning radar systems.
Keep on "poking by proxy" and we will find out, because we are ruled over by idiots, imperialists, obfuscators, liars, deceivers and manipulators: not all of them, but enough to implement the divide and rule strategy of power.
Keep on poking, and find out that we've always been ruled by chest-thumping fools and psychopaths all along: not all of them, but enough to implement age-old Roman-era strategies of power, intended to gain for a few as most others lose. Just don't for a minute think, the default "other side" doesn't know what our leaders are up to...
Don't for a minute think that in the attempted twisting of observable reality to deceive oneself, that one can deceive others.
Should the above unfold, it doesn't matter anymore how one chest-thumps around about how "superior" or "always right" one systemically always was while setting off on the MARCH ROUTE of the empire.
It doesn't matter anymore if one lives in the EU or Northern Europe, going "but, but, I'm so innocent."
It doesn't matter if one chants "trust our leaders, cos they know better cos cos we democracies and we never did anything wrong as the default setting..."
It doesn't matter anymore about how the few survivors brag about "how many millions of Russians they also bagged".
Then it doesn't matter anymore, because our myopic leaders will no longer be in a position to implement wrongs per "new Versailles" (currently planned in Switzerland for mid-June) and get away with it. Of course, they are going to insist on only negotiating with the true representatives of the peoples of Russia, who truly desire peace just like our own superior Western leaders who have only always wanted peace, cos they said so, and since that turned out so great last time around.
The conference is of course a total waste of taxpayer money, just like Versailles was 100 years ago (1919).
Before Moscow gets into that position of becoming carved up and used as a tool to encroach on the next in line, China, it will wipe the entire West off the map FIRST.
China is not going to stand by without action, while Russia dissolves into single, smaller, easily influenced buck-catchers for the USA/collective West (imperialism, by "using" smaller nations to do the own bidding), because they know full-well they will be next to be carved up and divvied out.
The USA/collective West no longer have a geographical position of power.
The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbors, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed.
Guess who will live longest in the "nuclear winter"-scenario? (theory)_
Short answer: NOT you (personally).
Longer answer: The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand). The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
Because during the next war set up by the dividers of the world, from their assumed GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, it does not matter "who is right" and it does not even matter "who is left," loosely quoting Churchill, but rather in what state the leftovers are going to be in.
CONCLUSION:
Today the default rivals/enemies to keep Eurasia divided and in a state of turmoil, are nuclear powers: they don't have to CARE what you (individual) think is "true" or is the "rule" whilst your empire is slowly creeping up on their borders and spheres of influence, or try to surround or encroach on them with old Roman era schemes, same as around 1900. If the USA/collective West is going to keep on encroaching, or trying to take over spheres of influence, you are going to get your sorry "50% wealth of the world is mine"-ass fried, and then it doesn't matter how many pushups you did that morning, or how beautiful you think your rich neighborhood looks, how lovely your boom boom tanks and airplanes are, or how much of the world's resources you think your systems have a right to CONTROL. The people who gain from an imperialistic setup they implement are overwhelmingly not going to die from the disasters growing out of the foundations they lay down. Throughout history, they've always managed to pay those who overwhelmingly don't gain, to sit in that muddy trench, for the gains of those at the tops of the pyramids.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The truth is hard to deal with....
1. Afghanistan
In the 1980s, the U.S. worked with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to overthrow Afghanistan's socialist government. It funded, trained and armed forces led by conservative tribal leaders whose power was threatened by their country's progress on education, women's rights and land reform. After Mikhail Gorbachev withdrew Soviet forces in 1989, these U.S.-backed warlords tore the country apart and boosted opium production to an unprecedented level of 2,000 to 3,400 tons per year. The Taliban government cut opium production by 95% in two years between 1999 and 2001, but the U.S. invasion in 2001 restored the warlords and drug lords to power. Afghanistan now ranks 175th out of 177countries in the world for corruption, 175th out of 186 in human development, and since 2004, it has produced an unprecedented 5,300 tons of opium per year. President Karzai's brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, was well known as a CIA-backed drug lord. After a major U.S. offensive in Kandahar province in 2011, Colonel Abdul Razziq was appointed provincial police chief, boosting a heroin smuggling operation that already earned him $60 million per year in one of the poorest countries in the world.
I heard around a hundred Americans are dying every day from opioid overdose? Reap what you sow babies...
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
French Aristocrat You mean like the Brits, and US soldiers who invaded Iraq in 2003, and turned the entire ME into a shithole? I know, Brit and US soldiers are therefore PERSONALLY responsible for all that followed....civil war, hundreds of thousands of deaths, ISIS, civil war, millions of refugees, Charlie Hebdo, Brussels, the sexual attacks in Cologne....
Yes, I agree.
The soldiers are personally responsible. Correct?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
George the Kafir Maybe. Alternative history is a tricky topic, since there are so many variables.
Germany would certainly have won, if Hitler could have somehow swung GB to sign a peace treaty in 1940. That way, there would have been no blockade, and fuel, rubber, and other raw materials could have flown freely to aid production.
It would also have needed for the other Axis partners to join in (Italy, Romania, Hungary, etc.). Alone, Germany lacked the manpower to ward of the Russians with their constant 'human waves' of attacking, and never surrendering even under hopeless conditions. This caused around 100,000 German deaths in the first six months of the campaign.
The SU would certainly have collapsed if Turkey had allowed the Italian fleet to sail through the Bosporus (which would have allowed attacks in the Ukraine, dispersing Soviet troops along the Black Sea coast), and if Japan had likewise attacked in the east, binding the Siberian Army.
Furthermore, if the peoples had been promised freedom and independence in return for fighting Stalin and communism, millions of Ukrainians, Armenians, Georgians, White Russians and others would have laid down their arms and joined the invaders.
That however, was made impossible by the Nazi ideology of the Nazi elite, who viewed these people as subhuman, and not fit to be considered as allies.
Until much later that is, after the setbacks of 1942 and 1943 made them change their minds...
6
-
Your comment almost completely ignored the effect of naval power.
Firstly (as already pointed out in this thread), the effects of the blockade, which already had an effect on the German economy as early as 1915.
Secondly, and even more importantly, the fact of how the RN bottled up the German Navy in their home ports. Without this, the German Navy would have roamed the Med and Atlantic in large force, sinking or confiscating ships bound for France, interrupting trade with French colonies, or blockading French ports.
I think both the numerical and qualitative superiority of the German ships, and their organisation and leadership, would have overwhelmed the French Navy in 1914 and 1915.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
So Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works."
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others.
The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same strategies of expansion as they did 500, 200 and 100 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care. As always, the warning voices of the sane halves are ignored, downplayed, "finger pointed" at as "unpatriotic," or as being "in bed with the enemy", and many other forms of equally "rhyming history." It is what they spend billions on every year so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching to the jolly tunes.
The systems and corporations came in droves for SYSTEMIC EXPANSION and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE...
A little piece over here for a little American/NATO base.
A nice little piece over there, of the Nordstream project.
A piece of the Panama Canal.
A tiny sliver of those Ukrainian raw materials.
A nice little chunk of a percentage of political influence.
And ALL of Greenland...
The meddling created by the own proactive divide-and-rule strategy of power then results in effects:
Imperialistic meddling is always a CAUSE to which there will be a resulting EFFECT.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The question why it took GB 7 years after WW2, to carry out their 1st nuclear test, even though the technology had already been developed by international scientist (also British) before 1945.
Because its the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and "cute Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world really works...
Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world "you shall not have nuclear weapons!"
[Google how that unfolded with: "history/british-nuclear-program]
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
1945 Washington DC: "If you want nukes, develop them yourself. In the meantime, I'll dismantle your empire. What are you going to do about it?"
That's how leverage works.
Rule Britannia, replaced by the American Century.
Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana.
Why didn't Washington DC/The American Century give their "special friends" the secret of nuclear bombs in 1945?
What is your best answer?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
At Coventry the LW used X- and Y-precision bombing aiming devices, and aimed for specific industrial zones.
From wiki:
" The raid that began on the evening of 14 November 1940 was the most severe to hit Coventry during the war. It was carried out by 515 German bombers, from Luftflotte 3 and from the pathfinders of Kampfgruppe 100. The attack, code-named Operation Mondscheinsonate of the city, including monuments and residential areas, would be considerable. The initial wave of 13 specially modified Heinkel He 111 aircraft of Kampfgruppe 100, which were equipped with X-Gerät navigational devices, accurately dropped marker flares at 19:20.[a]The British and the Germans were fighting the Battle of the Beams and on this night the British failed to disrupt the X-Gerät signals."
Later on the British side, these "beams" were bent, or interfered with, meaning that accuracy was greatly inhibited.
At Coventry, there was no attempt at "area bombing" civilians.
Again, these were "collateral damage".
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Jeez, the amount of triggered white sHitler lovers on this video is amazing....
DISCLAIMER
Due to snowflake outrage, I feel obliged to make the following DISCLAIMER. The word "white" is by no means directed at all whites, but should be read in connection with "sHitler". With "sHitler", is meant "neonazis", and only neonazi. Nobody should feel obliged to be outraged on behalf of "white sHitlers".
"Jeez" is neither a degradation or racial slur, directed at any minorities, religion, or other American. The following groups are explicitly not meant: family values advocates, whites in general, conservatives, Christians, politicians, cops, whatevers....
And I mean, I really really mean all this.
6
-
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋 @AK.__
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Of course, the term "precision" was relative, but if one sends out ones forces in well-thought out operations, like Operation Bellicose, one can have real effects.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bellicose
Men who advocated this, like Ralph Cochrane, were not supported sufficiently from the top.
At the top, they stuck to the intention to "area bomb" city centers.
That meant bombers were sent to intentionally "dehouse" civilians, thereby wasting them away on attacks which did more to hasten the financial end of Empire, ending in GB's post-war ruin, rather than effectively contributing to the end of the war.
6
-
6
-
6
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
"The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: WRONG.
It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid ze divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like ze Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing ze game themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
The Big Lie is the power of the divide and rule/conquer technique, and even the Nazis hid their "Big Lie"-conspiracy theory, behind an even bigger lie...
6
-
6
-
"When two neighbouring countries fight each other, just know the USA visited one." - Nelson Mandela (Region: Southern Africa/Big picture timestamp: Cold War).
The statement is not quite correct.
When two neighbours fight each other, just know that an empire has been there previously.
It's the old joke that "If two fish are fighting, the British Empire has been there."
It is a truism about imperialism in general, and how divide-and-rule works.
Set up neighbours against each other, using a variety of ever-consistent techniques and strategies. With absolute certainty, the tribal leaders of Europe joked the same way about the Roman Empire 2000 years ago, as these outsiders/Romans plus proxies, openly flaunted their "Pax Romana" whilst in the background covertly favouring one "local neighbour", whilst setting them up against the others, using whatever reasoning it wanted.
Outsiders will come to a state (also covertly politically or via NGOs as the strategy of "cultural- and political capture"), and these outsiders try to lay down the foundation for division by setting up the "new-found friend" against its neighbours and if it is unsuccessful in one "state" (status quo), it will simply go to the neighbours and try the same. The more neighbours, the more chances of a successful division of powers, which is beneficial to the "divider". The more "neighbors", the merrier the games. Because if these neighbours all end up squabbling and fighting, the "divider" vacuums off gains (of various kinds) in the background. Such implemented and leveraged divisions do not necessarily stem from evil intent, since most of the participants in a divide-and-rule strategy have absolutely no idea that they have become "actors" in a great game, the scope of which they remain ignorant of. Even those with good intentions (political doves) can create division.
No amount of agreements, accords, negotiation or skills will ever stop the "dividers", for nothing they sign will stop their divisive ways.
The oil-rich Middle East, MENA-region is a perfect example of the above, which is globally practiced today. The only thing which changed between the Roman Empire and the current times is technology, which vastly shrunk the world and the REACH of the controlling empire.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."[end of]
America's allies and foes in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
Set up European and Eurasian nations against each other.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
6
-
You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works."
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is hiding behind the mainstream stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others, any which way.
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same strategies of expansion as they did 500, 200 and 100 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care. As always, the warning voices of the sane halves are ignored, downplayed, "finger pointed" at as "unpatriotic," or as being "in bed with the enemy", and many other forms of equally "rhyming history." It is what they spend billions on every year to obfuscate reality, so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching to the jolly tunes...
The systems and corporations came in droves for SYSTEMIC EXPANSION and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE...
A little piece land with own laws over here for a little American/NATO base.
A nice little piece of capital over there, of the Nordstream project.
A piece of the Panama Canal ...just "wanted back" mind you.
A tiny sliver of those Ukrainian/Caucasian raw materials.
A nice little chunk of real estate, in the Levant
Just a little little bit of a percentage of political influence EVERYwhere.
And, let's not forget, ALL of Greenland... ALL of it...
The meddling created by the own proactive divide-and-rule strategy of power then results in effects:
Imperialistic meddling is always a CAUSE to which there will be a resulting EFFECT.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
From around 56:00 mins on wards....
"What else could we have done?"
The question in itself, is already an admittance that the reality of what happened was wrong.
In other words, if the Bombing of civilians was the RIGHT thing to do, why even bother asking what else could have been done?
It is clearly dawning on more and more people, that the indiscriminate bombing of civilians was pointless, and did little to end the war.
As for the question "what else could have been done?", I can think of dozens of better things, even if one stays with the doctrine or policy of strategic bombing.
As for my contribution:
The Volkswagen factory in Wolfsburg.
During WW2, the two main variants of the Volkswagen, the Kuebelwagen and the Schwimmwagen were just what the German Army needed. They were simple, cheap, and didn't use much fuel (a vital factor for oil deprived Nazi Germany), or raw materials such as high grade steel.
They were used in the same functions as the famous US Jeep -- general purpose and often vital second line work such as recce, liaison, repair and maintenance troops for the tanks, carrying messages, and as transport for the lower forward echelons of command.
In Africa, German soldiers called it "Deutsches Kamel" (German Camel), because it was perfect for desert warfare. Again, especially because it used little fuel (difficult to transport over the Med), and had an air-cooled engine.
With around 50,000 and 15,000 built of the two versions, they were also the main vehicles in this category, and invaluable to the German side. Furthermore, the factory was also used to produce mines and torpedoes for submarines, which until mid-1943 were sinking British merchantmen by the scores.
One would think that with such potent reasons, the factory would be near the top of the list of likely targets for the bomber boys at Bomber Command.
As a plus point, the Volkswagen factory lay far away from any of the formidable centers of the German air defense network, and along the easy to locate Mittellandkanal (waterway).
Conclusion? Destroying this factory would have much simpler than taking on more formidable targets, such as big city centers.
Assertion? Destroying this factory would have played a vital role in undermining the fighting potential and mobility of the German armed forces.
Volkswagen was never attacked in force, and only minor attempts were directed at this exposed factory. It survived the war with only minor damage. Production continued until almost the end of the war, because other targets had a higher priority.
6
-
6
-
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon.
This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul rescinded).
For the "divider," the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises...
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. The conflagration that took place after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War, with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy o divide-nd-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they "feel" better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Do unto others what you do not want done to you."
Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the "logic" of causality where there is a trench waiting for you...
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as a "advantage" see footnote), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them.
No this is not a "conspiracy theory". This is divide-and-rule.
-------------------------------
Footnote:
Note that according to Machiavelli, the "princes" connected to the land and who benefited from their hereditary rule were also the GATEKEEPERS and were connected to what they saw as "theirs." OUTSIDERS (internationalists/globalists) who came/come or the profit and gain are NOT "connected" to the land at all, and place their own interests, often vested interests, BEFORE the people who live on the land. This narrative is distorted into meaning that "to be a Machiavelli is to be an a-hole" which is a distortion of what the book was about. Machiavelli states clearly to keep ones "princes" in POWER, for to lose them would mean losing the GATEKEEPERS, who via their own vested interests, also protect the people who live in entire regions of the world. Via Trojan Horses, "democracies" can be CAPTURED (culturally-, economically-, politically-, emotionally and militarily), as a process which can be studied as the actors reveal themselves through their actions/events.
6
-
6
-
6
-
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt...
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Most people in the world know that the US government in the Pentagon/Washington DC, does not represent every American citizen.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Geopolitics links what they are discussing here, to the big picture.
There is a fracture zone between the big global players (USA/EU, Russia, China) running from the North Pole, through the Baltic States, Poland and Ukraine, via the Caucasus, Iran, and towards Israel. Another fracture zone is the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa (incl. Israel), from there through India, SE Asia (incl. Vietnam), through Taiwan, the Koreas, Japan, Taiwan, back up to the North Pole.
Expect Washington DC, either in collaboration with a NATO state, or tacidly nodded off by the EU, to instigate crises and wars EVERYWHERE on these "fracture zones," because it is the only way they can hang on the the good ol' days a bit longer: their role of the hegemon of the world, and that of the American Century.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Staging areas
Definition: "In military uses, a staging area is a place where troops or equipment in transit are assembled or processed.[1]
The US Department of Defense uses these definitions: (DOD) 1. Amphibious or airborne-A general locality between the mounting area and the objective of an amphibious or airborne expedition, through which the expedition or parts thereof pass after mounting, for refueling, regrouping of ships, and/or exercise, inspection, and redistribution of troops. (DOD) 2. Other movements-A general locality established for the concentration of troop units and transient personnel between movements over the lines of communications ...[2] Often and historically this military staging area has been termed a point d'appui ... Unlike normal bases, the facilities of a staging area are temporary, mainly because for a certain time it will hold much more troops and material than would be reasonable in peacetime. Militaries use staging areas to deploy military units, aircraft and warships plus their materiel ahead of an attack or invasion. In former times this used to be generally the border area of one's own country, but in recent wars (Gulf War, Kosovo War, Iraq War) it may also be the border area of another unrelated country granting access." (source: https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Staging_area)
In the last part, the description is not entirely correct, since globally available staging areas are not a modern phenomena. In former times empires always employed such "direct or indirect" staging areas far away from the own heartlands as points on the axis of advance of their own empires. A "staging area" is not defined in extent: in the battlefield context of "battlefield tactics" it could be a town or field for the assembly of troops and vehicles, but in its largest form in grand strategy it can be entire countries or whole islands for massive armies, navies or air forces. The advantage of a staging area meant "no storming of beaches facing direct enemy fire", and probably the most famous example of such a staging area was the UK during World War 2, used for the gradual buildup of British and Empire forces, as well as the ordered arrival of allies like the US armed forces before D-Day in 1944: all in relative safety.
If islands, such staging areas are often termed "unsinkable aircraft carriers". Staging areas are often refered to using colloquial expresions, or human body parts, in order to facilitate understanding of the concept: for example, Napoleon coined the term "pistol pointing at the heart of England" (heartland of the enemy) for Antwerp as jumping off point for a large invasion fleet, and therefore explains the reason why Belgium was created and given a permanent neutral status within a "concert" of nations, as a way to help avoid future wars by understanding the fears of another power, and addressing these fears in a decent manner.
It is a part of military strategy, and since a large part of history of empires deals with military strategies, it is also necessary to delve into the subject matter, analyse historical events,in order not to become mislead or the "useful tool" in the propaganda campaigns of the present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_strategies_and_concepts
Staging areas will be found on the regions of the planet where states have interests, as the US DoD definition already alludes to by pointing out the Iraq War (staging areas = Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). They are often located in the fracture zones these empires create themselves, as cause/effect of the own policies. Once one understands the axis of advance of empires, or where these interests are, one also understands the strategies and other sides' counter-strategies and why some regions of the planet historically turned into war zones, others not, or some future regions might become war zones. When coupling the concepts of "staging areas" and the "axis of advance" of empires, it becomes clear why British and Free French forces landed on Madagascar in 1942, in order to prevent it from becoming a Japanese staging area, in case the Japanese Empire intended to expand into the Indian Ocean. Apart from the direct "colonies" or "overseas territories" there are also the staging areas offered by "friendly nation status" afforded by treaties: the "oldest alliance in the world" as Anglo-Portugese Alliance and based on treaties going back to 1294, stated that under any attack on British territory, that Portugal would "aid" (and vice-versa), and such a form of aid could be offering Portugal as "staging area" for the assembly of Empire forces in case of any attack by a third country, on Gibraltar.
Why Stalin wanted the Limitrophe States (1939)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitrophe_states
By removing a potential British staging area in case of his own communist expansion south (2nd Tournament of Shaddows) "triggered" a British Empire flank attack or an exposed flank, using a friendly power like Poland as a "staging area" had to be preventively removed or neutered. Of course, a strategist like Stalin would much rather have these countries as his own buffer zones.
Such examples make it clear how creating such "staging areas" are a premier basis of expansion, whilst removing such possibilities from rivals are the other: the counter strategy, as recently wittnessed in the Solomon Islands (standoff between China and the USA and allies). The territories are again becoming vital in the "shaddow tournaments" (geopolitics), in view of BRICS expanding into South America, and any future potential military angle to BRICS is already being contested today (all therefore being preventive actions). See the comments regarding the "periphery of the world" below...
It also becomes clear why simply creating a neutral country won't work in case the "axis of advance" of the empires are not also addressed via treaties or accords (non aggression pacts, etc.). In other words, it won't help simply creating a neutral country, if these neutral countries then simply offer the "shields" empires intend to advance behind, by setting up their staging areas behind such neutral states or "barrier zones". It will lead to tension in the "spiral model" of diplomacy.
Taiwan, or Formosa has ahistory as a staging area for empires, in a strategic location off China. The only thing which changed was the hegemons. First for Japan after 1895, because it facilitated the Japanese Empire's advance into China and the Pacific, and today for the USA since US troops are already stationed here even though it is legally still a part of China (International Law). Regardless of emotions, laws are not buffets from which one can cherry pick "favorites" and discard "icky laws" one doesn't like: one either abides by laws, or one doesn't. The side "pushing until something snaps" is clear, as the USA wishes to build it up as a staging area for its own future interests.
Ukraine, and "NATO encroachment" after 1999:
Empires in advance are always looking for such potential staging areas, and here the recent Ukraine and Taiwan question (post 2000) point out which empires were "pushing" as their strategy, and which empires took a defensive stand.
Empires in defense of own homelands would always choose war to avoid a peacetime setup of such a staging area (see War of 1812 as a preventive US attack on Canada as potential "staging area" for the British Empire as exemplary).
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
This is the theory.
According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules.
According to the concept of "meaning of words" all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life (50% for us, the minority), on ALL tiers, often by force, coercian, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world).
That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power).
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interverence at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
§§§footnote
The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces/wealth when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
>>>
The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
>>>
The people of the Americas, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people into "ingroups". In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the USA's power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS. Eden was a status quo divided by lies and deceit. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the two Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly are two cheeks of the same gold-plated hind which sets out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, is the mirror of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion.
The Albion 2.0 took over...
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets and becomes successful it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances.
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
It "started" quite innocently, way before WW2.
With a London policy.
I'm sure the British population and the inhabitants of Empire would have been happy if their toffs hadn't made Germany the enemy as a default setting.
The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting...
[britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power]
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.
It came first before all other considerations.
It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding
1) alliances
2) treaties (or no treaties)
3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord)
4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle)
5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint)
6) when to engage in arms races
7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences
Go over your history, and see its handwriting all around...
Enjoy.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
Elsewhere, wars were instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, leading to disunity in the world, for the advantage of the dividers, in the USA.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power, or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power.
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
6
-
6
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Europeans "divided" by a line drawn on a map (this "B-B line"), without them having a say in matters, and with them expected to "man the parapets" of the resulting "wall".
Played again, and again...
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. The USA could afford to wait. Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages.
In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era instruments of POWER), but cannot be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@Chuanese I'm afraid it is far more complicated that simply looking at economic ties, or trade.
Because if one studies history, one notices how there are similar geopolitical implications when trying to "cordon off" rivals in a military or "alliances" manner...
In the late-19th Century, France fought back against the German attempts to isolate it politically, by cordoning off Germany and the Central Powers with a ring of alliance partners.
France, in the west, a hostile Russia in the east.
GB's RN in the position to cut off the north, in case of war, joined later. That only left a small corridor of access either through Serbia, or Austria-Hungary's ports in the Adriatic (threatened by British hegemony over Greece).
Before WW1, things like cultural exchanges, or trade carried on pretty normally. Most people alive at the time "felt" nothing extraordinary in their daily life.
Today, we see a similar strategy concerning China.
Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines controlling sea access to the east. Trump playing it nice with Putin/Russia [yup, "collusion" in some form or other is real. Geopolitics almost dictates it to be true], would cut off the north-west/north-east. A more hostile India, will cover the south-west sector...almost there.
That only leaves a narrow corridor of access to the south, in the South China Sea. The Sprattly Islands...
History might not always be 100% the same, but it certainly rhymes.
Encircling a rival with a ring of alliance partners is the typical strategy of those who wish to rule the world.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Reality? "Politicians are the best example of how idealists can become idiots, because it can only be an idiot who believes that peace can be forced through (ETERNAL crises and) war." - Stephanie Guss
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS.
Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite?
Today we see millions of followers of Islam, praying in their mosques in West Asia, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS, and 125 years ago we saw millions of followers of Christ, praying in their churches, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS. Oh, wait...we didn't see it...
We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", and "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
6
-
6
-
6
-
Correct.
The longer version of that...
PART I
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), (§§§ see PART II, below) the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed." SOURCE: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive
US strategist in these think tanks lay out the scheme of what was going to be the new post-war reality, as a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" for the USA to control. Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under US supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.)
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." Note, all words in quotes were actual words used IN THIS OFFICIAL US DOCUMENT, and the thesis and its quoted sources can all be downloaded for free, from the www, and using these key words provided for your search engine.
---------------------------------
After around 1940, ... (quote) "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident (§§§footnote) – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. *Within this framework the role of France, Germany and ENGLAND of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations..."
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world."
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.", Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@stoa7302 It goes back a looooong time 🙂
The "freedom and democracy"-argument as a cover story for ulterior motives has a long history.
THE PROTOTYPE COLOR REVOLUTION
"For Jefferson, as he wrote to Abigail (in private), it was the end of an epoch. It was the end of one epoch and the beginning of another in Europe too. ... In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution ... who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile..." Adams and Jefferson : a Revolutionary dialogue / Merrill D. Peterson, Digital Library of Georgia Online Plattform
Jefferson and Adams, no doubt the "inspiration" for hundreds who would follow in their wake, such as Victoria "handing out candy to the MAIDAN" Nuland, as "revolutionary training experts", trying to divide other systems for the own gain.
Setting up such "Color Revolutions" throughout their history, and training/supporting revolutionaries in the name of freedom, whilst in reality simply expanding the own spheres of interests by dividing others, has had a long American history. The divide and rule strategy of potentially damaging opposing systems (in the above case, in Europe), are kept in a state of revolutions and upheaval using the "freedom - revolution - democracy" arguments.
Obviously, at this early point in history Washington DC had very little power. But as her power grew, so did the influence of the own divide and rule/conquer techniques.
Today: Asia beware.
Keep a lookout for the tell-tale signs of a US led divide and rule strategy, to set up Asians against each other as a repeat of history.
Making use of the own geographical advantage of distance, the US advance via staging areas (like Hawaii, or the Philippines 1898) continued one step at a time, as other nations were set up against each other with clear intent, as revealed by private discussions and letters...not the kind words and speeches intended for the consumption of the MSM news readers, since even waaaay back then all MSM was already in the hands of the billionaire class.
A few years later...
"From the outset of hostilities, Roosevelt, his pro-Japanese sympathies notwithstanding, privately wished for the continued presence of Russia in East Asia to serve as a counterweight against Japanese expansionism. He perceived that Japanese domination of the region could prove as detrimental to American "Open Door" policy objectives as had the Russian domination. As early as March 19, 1904, he expressed in a letter to his friend Cecil Arthur Spring Rice (then the secretary to the British delegation in St. Petersburg) a hopeful supposition that "the two powers will fight until both are fairly well exhausted, and that then peace will come on terms which will not mean the creation of either a yellow peril or a Slav peril.” The astonishing pace of Japanese arms through the succeeding months gradually convinced the President that a rapid cessation of the war was necessary to preserve Russian influence in the contested region. Writing to Whitelaw Reid, the American ambassador to Britain, on June 5, 1905, Roosevelt admitted that he "should be sorry to see Russia driven out of East Asia,” and averred that "driven out she will surely be if the war goes on.” In sum, he stated to Senator Henry Cabot Lodge on June 16, 1905, "It is best that (Russia) should be left face to face with Japan so that each may have a moderative action on the other." 1994 Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Jonathan Bennett Ault College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences (pp.49-51)
The same so-called good guys of history, because for these powerful US statesmen and their willing local tools, "crimes are those that others commit" (quote Noam Chomsky).
These dividers of entire nations and continents are above the law.
Don't ever expect the American legal system to punish such advocates of divide and rule and the bloodshed it results in.
Don't expect a majority of Americans to call out their leaders for what they are doing.
They either haven't been informed, or don't understand because of their warmongering MSM, don't know, don't care, or even if they did, are not going to stop their leaders...
The overwhelming number of Americans, in the sinecure comfort of their "mommy's basements"-existences, are not like Noam Cholmsky, John Mearsheimer, or Brian Berletic, and many others who know what their government is up to and are actually willing to speak out.
They are the real heroes of history, following in the footsteps of such "prototype whistleblowers" like Smedley-Butler...
The "revolutionary training"-experts care little about the subsequent bloodshed. They are in complete disregard the biblical rule "do not steal/kill", those responsible will "wash hands in innocence", and "point the finger elsewhere" as deflection from their own actions. It is also arguably the cheapest way to expand the own sphere of influence, and gain markets for own products, which is why they do it.
It is a cheap way to aquire spheres of influence because the heavy lifting, and bloodshed, is borne by local individuals who had been set up against each other, using the emotions of individuals to create little systems of "revolutionary"-spririts...
Asians beware...
The "dividers" WILL come for you again.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
You can't.
We the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join up...
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
+ryans77 That the Brits and French were caught "off guard" is a myth.
Both sides re-armed at an increasing rate from 1938 on wards. The problem was that the British and French increased their arsenals, and the their troop strengths, but NOT the vital tactics of battle.
In other words, while the armies grew in size, they did not upgrade their doctrine.
In 1939/1949, the combined French and British land forces were already superior to Germany in numbers.
They had more tanks, better tanks, more artillery and more soldiers.
The French and British navies dwarfed the tiny Kriegsmarine.
Only the German Luftwaffe was superior in numbers.
Much of the British pre-war effort at re-armament was "pasive". In other words in the form of preparation. That included such things as the Shadow Aircraft Factory Scheme, Chain Home and Fighter Command ground control (to ward off the threat of the feared bomber), and long term naval re-armament (for example the "Hunt" class escort destroyers).
All of these measures were pre-war, and ordered by the Chamberlain government.
When Churchill took power in 1940, these effort started to bear fruit, and Churchill took the all the glory.
That wasn't very nice, was it? :-)
I'd say, give credit were credit is due. Chamberlain deserves the credit for the victory in the Battle of Britain, since the measures he implemented in 1938 and 1939 brought the Brits their greatest victory.
5
-
5
-
David Worsley Of course I can see the difference between making a civilian population the intention of a military action, or accepting them as 'collateral'.
The attacks were a German knee-jerk reaction.
The intention was to draw out the RN.
So, where was the Royal Navy?
The Germans had no way to respond to the British long-distance blockade of Northern Europe (Germany, but also the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark). In order to enforce this 'long distance blockade' (incidentally, also NOT sanctioned by the Hague Convention, same as the German shore-bombardment actions), the bulk of the RN was stationed at Scapa Flow.
Instead of carrying out a close blockade of German ports only (as sanctioned by the Hague Convention), British strategists decided to take a less risky approach, and include ALL of Northern Europe in their blockade.
It was a morally questionable choice, because it included 30,000,000 million neutrals, who wished to have noting to do with GBs war on Germany. My Dutch grandmother was one of them, and she told me how they would go around from farm to farm after school, trying to trade or beg together a few scraps of food.
Anyway, in a nutshell, a close blockade of German ports and the Skagerrak would have bottled up the Kaiser's ships in their ports, and kept the British population safe. Of course, the 'warrior clan' would have needed to face a greater risk, to keep their women and children safe.
But isn't that what we can expect of them?
Sometimes, making morally questionable choices have repercussions.
Whose fault?
5
-
5
-
At http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sM5sQIZXlg&t=9m45s mins
Look how they quickly change the criteria.
Obama asked why 'Warren Buffet's secretary should pay a higher personal income tax rate than Warren Buffet'.
Then, these two gents laugh about it, but quickly change the criteria to 'who pays the most income tax?'
No, it's about the rate (10, 15 or 25 % of total income), and NOT where the government gets the most money from.
Yup, of course the most INCOME tax comes from a mega rich, but these mega rich also make the most money.
Why try to stick to 'income tax' only?
Why not look at taxing in general, as a proportion of income?
Seen as a percentage of income, even those who pay NO income tax (because they earn too little), pay a lot of tax as a percentage of what they earn.
For example, the 50% gasoline tax, or sales tax (7-10%) would cut 'Joe the plumber' deep. Yet, the mega rich Wall Street banker laughs at the (seen as a percentage of his income) 50% of his gas tax.
If Warren Buffet pays 30 dollars of tax on a 60 dollar gas bill, he'll laugh it off.
For a low income family, 30 dollars of taxes on a tank full of gas, is a much, much higher percentage of their total earnings.
Of course, you'll NEVER find a 10%-er from the upper income bracket, arguing that the 90% of average and low income families pay the vast majority of fuel and sales tax.
Hmmm....
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The Treaty of Versailles was, according to many historians and their various analyses, the death knell of Europe.
The ability of people to blame others for the effects of own behaviour, rather than to blame themselves for their own decisions, castes long shadows.
Individuals should avoid debates following the principles of "right/wrong" since such debates go around in circles forever. Debaters cherry-picking their "facts" and "dates." Obviously, everybody has a different concept of "right/wrong." Instead, point out causal effects of own actions imposed, and which were NOT a result of a "round table" negotiation such as The Concert of Europe was. These decisions after the Napoleonic Wars, to create a balance of powers per mutual agreement after a major tragedy which affected all, worked amazingly well for 100 years, despite the limited wars which continued after 1815. The first step of those seeking peace was to acknowledge the security risks of all the major powers, but also avoiding the childish "finger pointing" at all the various hotheads who had previously escalated limited crises/engagements of regional character, thereby escalating these into a world-wide war, with millions of dead and millions more negatively affected.
With the Treaty of Versailles, Europe went down the drain when their leaders decided to abandon the principle of Machiavellian fairness, and impose an IMbalance of power de jure at a green table, without the deterrence to enforce it in the future. NOT a "Machiavellian" principle, but the reasoning of weak minds who know they wouldn't have to face consequences if anything went wrong (the biggest examples of the "mommy's basement hero" in history, were the "winners" of WW1 for that matter).
By not inviting all, REGARDLESS of the excuses made, they thereby created a de facto reality which was the same as pre-1914. The security concerns of a neighbour was simply ignored. The NWO was dictated onto one of the neighbours (Versailles) whilst another was simply not invited either. This an observation based on the facts. Why was the situation of pre-1914 recreated again post-1918 at Versailles? In 1919 Machiavellian fairness was thrown out the window again when one of the powers was encroached upon by an "encirclement strategy" AGAIN.
The first encirclement took place in stages starting in the 1890s, and continued following the year 1900. After WW1 the encirclement strategy was continued again; instead of a small number of large encircling powers as before 1914, there were now (enabled by the Armistice and Versailles) a larger number of smaller encirclers after 1919, who either allied with or aligned with the "winners" (France/GB/USA). Thereby, wanted or not, these new smaller states became the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer Theory) of outsiders. European history of 1,000 years, as either France or the Holy Roman Empire tried to encircle each other (2-front war danger), trying to get the vital upper hand in a struggle for Western European "top dog"-status, continued.
Just like in physics, every force creates a counterforce. The intention to "keep down/keep out/encircle" a neighbour, created an effect.
Aristotle (attr.): “It is not enough to win the war. It is more important to organize peace.”
They failed to organize a just peace, and therefore merely kicked the can down the road...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
The observation today is therefore that Europeans will lose again, because after 1990 this marching onto the borders of a neighbour, and encroaching on a neighbour (also by proxy as divide-and-rule strategy), ignoring constantly repeated warnings, was continued. Only this time the neighbour encroached upon with an encirclement strategy was Russia. The "morphed tools" now included all Central European nations, too blinded by narratives to unite in time to avoid their own tool status again.
This is an OBSERVATION, empowered by a million bits of data from history, and which cannot be countered, because it actually happened.
This forces the obfuscators and "whataboutism"-fanboys into all kinds of contorted distorted gish-galloping attempts at deflecting, word trickery and ingroup bonding, to get the ingroup in line again.
The "marching route" towards Russia was:
- Eastern Europe
- Balkans
- Black Sea Region/Caucasus (southern pincer of encroachment)
- Baltic Region/Scandinavia (northern pincer of encroachment)
Those who implement their step-by-step, SYSTEMIC EXPANSION always only want peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE. A little "piece" of...
All they wish to do is "eat a PIECE of salami, slice by slice by slice" (strategy of encroachment) and they are all very friendly. Look, they even wag their NATO-tails. Then they think people are too stupid to notice what they are doing. All they wish to do is deflect from a very simple reality: they need YOU as a tool, to overpower your neighbour FOR them. In the big picture, the story is to deceive people into doing unto others what they would never consider acceptable if "done unto them" (systems).
As stated in the first paragraph, individuals can argue their own personal rights/wrongs until they are blue in the face, huff and puff about how great they are, but it is not going to protect them from the harmful causal effects of the own systemic expansive aims as implemented by the strategists in the capital cities, or by the so-called "friends" who employ them as tools, buffer zones, as happily marching "useful idiots/innocents" (instruments of power) ideological propagandists, a "new best friend" with a nice new shiny red bullseye painted on the back (lightning rods), or otherwise employed as proxies, without "round table"-consent of all involved powers (aka Machiavellian concept of fairness).
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Why the suffering?
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt...
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@ataurrahaman3640 Yes, unfortunately too many people voice platitudes like "the past is no justification", whilst forgetting that everything we are witnissing today, was once justified by people in their diaspora, with a 2,000-year old grudge of being expelled, and then using that as a justification for their settlement of lands already inhabited by the Palestinian people (Palestinians = everybody living in the British mandate called "Palestine" in 1919).
The entire problem follows a "pattern" we can see unfolding again and again on different tiers of society. Basically, get the support of a few rich/influencial friends, and then push the poor around, and expect these "politically unconnected" to do as ordered, without consulting them or their leaders.
Basically, "might makes right"-advocates wiggling around, trying to find a "storyline" they can tell themselves, so as not to feel bad about the past.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interverence at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
§§§footnote
The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
5
-
5
-
5
-
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt...
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
At 23:30
The SU and Great Britain did not only invade Persia/Iran during WW2, but also triggered a famine, just like the more famous one in India.
Wiki exposes the typical blame games the power mongers play, trying to deflect own causes for mass-starvation: "The British government blamed the situation on hoarding, inefficient distribution and an inadequate transport system, but Washington suspected that the British had deliberately manipulated the food supply to further their own political objectives.[6] Meanwhile, the Soviets banned food shipments from the north, claimed that they needed the resources for the people and soldiers fighting the Germans, and blamed British mismanagement for the famine since no similar conditions existed in the Soviet-held areas. However, officials who visited Iran before the invasion noted that Iranians were already in near-starvation nationwide."
In reality, such artificially triggered famines expose imperialist arrogance, and why the world needs a balance of powers to keep empires out of the own countries, and have leaders consider OWN priorities FIRST.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@shanarchy614 One thing is for sure, whether monarchies or democracy, whether technocracies or plutocracies, whether military dictatorships or anarchy, whether an olighary or capitalism/corporatism, there will always be 10% who control 80% of the wealth...
Entire systems based on divide and rule/conquer strategies, can be masked behind other terms or hidden by the use of euphemisms. When one states the term Apartheid, most people will say that it was a system of "blacks against whites". Superficially this is true but as mostly in history that is just half the story. Upon closer examination it was an intricate system of favoratism in a complex political system of divide and rule, set up by the hegemony. Whites historically had the domineering political, military and financial power and could therefore divide all others into systems called races and classes. Cape Town (administrative capital city) and Pretoria (legistative capital) created a hierarchy of favorites in a power structure; favoratism is an instrument to implement division. Once the hegemony has division it can implement a pecking order of access to its own power. The more favored a system is, the more power it is afforded. Race or class, rather than meritocracy, was employed as an instrument of power to effect a favorable outcome for those who historically had the power and dominion. The different races in Southern Africa could not play the same game back against the political hegemony, because the existing power structures overwhelming favored the white minority in a minority rule system as a result of the previous history of colonialism which went back a long time. Any intentions by the leaders of those who ended up deeply divided, to try and overcome the imbalance by creating the single enemy as being "white rule", was dispersed by the hegemon preventively: by creating a system of favorites, with ascending levels of privilege afforded by the hegemon according to race and status in a complex system of favoratism, as explained below. Meritocracy as can be explored further is also an instrument of power and privilege, and those who wield power can offer desirable positions in systems as "carrot" to strive for (strategy). And one can again zoom out or zoom into almost every level of society or international relations desired. At the core all divide and rule strategies are the same. It has little to do with race or colonialism
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Einstein once said if you can't explain something to a 6-year old, you probably don't understand it yourself.
How to explain the global balance of power to a 6-year old.
1) Take an old-fashioned scale, those with a pivot and 2 shallow discs.
2) Put a candy bar below every disc.
3) Tell the kid that if I (the adult) put a Lego man on the scale, and the Lego man hits to the candy bar, that I (the adult) will get the candy bar below the Lego man, and he (the kid) will lose it.
4) Nobody is allowed to touch the candy bar, or he will lose it.
5) Demonstrate the counter-strategy for an imbalance, called BALANCING OUT a weight.
6) If the kid can balance the scale by putting a Lego man on the opposite side, the 6-year old gets to keep both candy bars
7) add further scales, to represent states, empires, and alliances (man-made systems) and regions or continents (natural systems), and repeat...
I guarantee every 6-year old will "get" how to balance a weight after one or 2 rounds.
Even once the incentive has been removed, every 6-year old with average cognitive skills, will STILL get it.
The issue is that something as simple as explaining how to balance, will not be understood by certain people: mostly those types leaning towards being rich (status quo), proud (incl. patriotism), hectoring (a-holes), squibbing (nitpickers), swearing (ignorant), carnivorous (greed), all loosely quoting Thomas Jefferson.
"The balance of threat theory is an offshoot of neorealism, coined in 1985 by Stephen M. Walt in an attempt to explain why balancing against rising hegemons has not always been consistent in history. In contrast to traditional balance of power theorists, Walt suggests that states balance against threats, rather than against power alone.[86] The "balance-of-power theory is not wrong; it is merely incomplete. Power is one of the factors that affect the propensity to balance, although it is not the only one nor always the most important." The theory acknowledges that power is an extremely important factor in the level of threat posed by a state, but also includes geographic proximity, offensive capabilities, and perceived intentions." (Wiki)
"In 1826, George Canning "called the new world into existence to redress the balance of the old". In 1898, Theodore Roosevelt found that the United States had become "more and more the balance of power of the whole globe." In 1941, a New Deal Economist with the National Resources Planning Board, Otto T. Mallery, averred that "destiny offers to the United States the ultimate balance of power and of resources in the world after the war." (wiki)
Of course, according to accepted history, the USA was always just "saving the world." (me = ROTFL)
"Eventually, explanation what implies "the balance of power favoring freedom" was dropped by "US National Security and Defense Strategies" of 2018: The Pentagon will ensure that the United States remain the "preeminent military power in the world," and the regional "balances of power remain in our favor." [Emphasis added] The "balance of power favoring freedom" appeared identical with the balance of power favoring "us." (wiki)
Critical question:
Around the year 1900, while London still had the power to greatly influence world affairs, at this pivotal stage of history, how did the London veto Lords intend to avoid becoming the future "caboose" (§§§Footnotes) of someone else's empire as it slowly but surely morphed into a "locomotive" (power) right in front of their eyes around the year 1900?
It is not a difficult question.
If you have the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being on the own "side" on the rim of the world, faraway from what one has lain the foundation for, then one simply does not have to care what happens in some or other foreseeable future. The own side can benefit from whatever happens...
As long as Europeans are dumb enough to believe faraway empires are there to protect them, and can't grasp HOW they are being mis/used to protect the bigger empire, then Europeans will have to keep on suffering.
§§§Footnote
"In the early Cold War, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson combined the concepts of preponderance and bandwagoning. As he put it, the United States was going to have to be "the locomotive at the head of mankind," while the rest of the world was going to be "the caboose."(§§§Footnote) (wiki) For the kids here too young to know, a "caboose" is the dirty car at the end of the freight train where all the riff-raff go, where the new overlords in Washington DC intended to stick the last remaining true Western European power, the British Empire.
-----------------------------
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." (globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500)
Mike Tyson — "Everyone that you fight is not your enemy and everyone who helps you is not your friend."
When a boxer and the average 6-year old, are smarter than the so-called brightest heads on the planet...
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@sandyhagey564 Correct.
Jihadist are not a western creation, but a western "tool" and Hasan is right.
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Training "terrorists" as "tools" reminds of the Bible trying to teach men to be aware of the "seeds" they sow.
The Bible as tool of morality is pointless, because "basically good men" will always ignore the bits they don't like.
When it's time to "reap" what has been sown, it's snowflake time aka "the emotional arguments".
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Moldova, Georgia, Taiwan, all as "potential next Ukrainians".
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail. The last time the USA gained big time, was after the USA had played its own still relatively small part in setting up Imperialist Europe for failure 100 years ago, starting around 1900 in small steps, using the divide and rule technique of power and from a position of unassailable geographical favor (the geographical reality can also be stated using other words, such as "competing from advantageous ground"/RAND Report, 2019).
How are American psycho leaders going to get Eurasian states/countries, incl. their own "friends" in the EU, and the rising East Asian part of BRICS, to go "down" again so the good times of "50% wealth for us" (post-WW2 strategy/McKennan), while attracting and raking in all the runaway talent from everywhere else as these regions are destroyed by crises and war (brain drain), and as these wars are funded by the post-1913 fiat currency dollar hegemony? (see footnote)
(this technique of how to sow division, accompanied by a host of examples, is more than sufficiently elaborated in the below comments section and is aka as "divide and rule")
How can US leadership avoid having to deal with the OWN divided and ruled population when they can no longer be pacified by throwing heaps of luxury into their laps, getting successively disgruntled as the amount of afforded wealth is decreasing yearly, and ever-more divided more and more unevenly within the own system (1% owning 50% of wealth in the USA) while everybody else on the planets is "exhausted" and "extended," all the while pretending to be friends? Note that the current rising anger within the USA is no longer ground on moral inequalities, such as the large uprisings in the 1960s, and 1970s. The current anger on the the streets, is overwhelming carried by a massive inequality within the OWN country, with the mega-rich encroaching on the own small amounts of acquired wealth in ever more outrageous and openly advocated and politically backed corporate steps. These private equity vultures that were once set loose on the entire planet, are now coming "home to roost"...
Obviously, unlike the post-WW2 "good ol' days" there is not enough to pass around anymore, as others rise and start demanding a fair share of the world's resources, on ALL "front lines" (tiers of power).
What are they going to do?
They are already doing it.
Implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power, both abroad as well as over the own people, same as ever since they existed.
The top tiers divide and rule, and this functions in one direction only: down, to the base, which is "we the people."
They divide us, but we have no way or means to divide them, the top tiers, in return.
footnote
Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money = "control" the resources. It doesn't need a ton of books to explain what money is. Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money/currency = "control" the resources.
"If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu," February 17th 2024, US Secretary of State Blinken. If you don't got the money honey, YOU are going to be eaten, if YOU don't unite with your neighbors, regardless of their class, religious beliefs, race or ethnicity, place of birth, language, culture or other easily implemented "divides" such as "lines drawn on a map" which are often politically exploited to the gain of the "top tiers."
Money is a vehicle to allocate resources within the globalist elite systems, with little bits trickling down to the minions. It's the physical resources which are limited, and who controls the flow of printable money, controls the flow of resources.
5
-
5
-
At 8:14 The Maidan "color revolution" is being repeated as we speak, as US modus operandi.
Georgia/Divide and Rule
Here is what they tell you these days: Something along the lines of "Georgian leaders are all Moscow puppets," and the oppression of the poor people via a "foreign influence law," and how it is all about current leaders being Moscow stooges....
Here is what they won't tell you: That the foreign state/empire (Washington DC) which pays these protesters or their handlers, via such agencies as the CIA affiliated NED (of ex-Maidan fame) already have their own act to avoid foreign meddling in the USA.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act
What the MSM won't tell you is that the foreign meddling in Georgia came FIRST, and that the act attempting to regulate this foreign meddling by Tiflis, came AFTER that.
A typical act of hypocrisy and deception, as per strategy of divide and rule, to avoid continental European/Eurasian unity implemented by Washington DC, as it has been for the past 200 years, using various deceptive divide and rule techniques. First by London, and very convenient for Washington DC. Then after 1945, after the British Empire was driven into the ground using economic warfare means, directly taken over by Washington DC as explained by Michael Hudson in his book Super Imperialism.
GRAND STRATEGY/GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Georgia, and millions of Georgians, are simply being set up as the "next Ukraine." Such a setting up of neighbors against neighbors has a long history and it is considered the absolute "acme of professionalism" by Washington DC to set up others to fight and die, so that US leaders in faraway Washington DC can haggle and arguing how much the lives of these locals are worth, all in efforts to score brownie points amongst their adoring fans.
To "invest" in such death, is considered the Washington DC norm, as stated by several Washington DC advocates for US global hegemony.
The scale of such setups is not important, nor how it is justified: It is divide and rule.
Such selective FAVORATISM is indicative of a divide and rule strategy, by an outside power.
Whether it is currently Tiflis, or historically London which was being FAVORED by the POWER with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE which was Washington DC, it remains a divide and rule strategy.
It does not matter if anybody tells you it is a divide and rule strategy, or not, because the strategy is given away by the EVENTS.
One might chest-thump around about how powerful ones "fwiends" are, but there will always be a PRICE TAG.
See Ukraine today, the "past FAVORITE."
There is always a price tag.
Often the excuses for meddling mirror each other, from "we must help the poor people" to "but, but, it was voluntary".
Regardless of any apologetics it remains DIVIDE AND RULE.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Exactly.
Therefore it is important to try to unravel the connections, and so undermine the power they gain from control over key resources ...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
5
-
5
-
He is pointing out that the citizens of USA are a victim of the monsters your leaders create, fund, and help organise as tools of "divide and rule"...
Ignorance of your own government's evil, does not protect individuals from harm.
From globalresearch
"The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”
So lemme get this straight.
Not even the smartest lawyers your dollars could buy, could come up with a way to spin and twist words in order to draft an anti-terrorist law, without sending good ol' USA straight behind bars?
LMFAO
Dumb 'murica. Eat the sh*t you created...
Deal with it, snowflakes, and stop whining about the effects of your own actions.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
From NATOs website:
"NATO Allies welcome Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO and they stand by the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance. Decisions regarding NATO membership are up to each individual applicant and the 30 NATO Allies. No one else. Russia has no right to intervene and cannot veto this process. Like every country, Ukraine has the sovereign right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security, one that Russia has also signed up to, including through the Helsinki Final Act (1975), the Charter of Paris (1990), the NATO-Russia Founding Act (1997) and the Charter for European Security (1999)."
Sounds "fair", right?
It is literally how "divide and conquer" works.
Seriously?
The "alpha" graciously "allows" (sic.) the little powerless "beta" to determine world affairs?
It is literally "history repeating" in "rivers of blood".
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...bye, bye..."
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct FACT: they did almost nothing to put their money where their mouths were.
Step 1: Polish leaders first baited by their own dreams.
Step 2: Then pwomises made.
Step 3: Then sold out, when they DID next to NOTHING to save "poor Poles".
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...bye, bye..."
Step 1: Czech leaders first baited by their own dreams of "historical gweatness".
Step 2: Then pwomises made.
Step 3: Then sold out, when they DID NOTHING to save "poor Czechoslovakia".
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct dates on the timeline, when THEY DID NOTHING.
The Ukraine the last 10 or so years?
First baited with "NATO membership" (2007/2008), and "being one of us" (EU)...
Then pwomises made, to "stand firm" and "we'll be there for you"...
Then sold out, and today our leaders are DOING next to NOTHING.*
Errrr...shouldn't our leaders have considered what they were going to do (considering the danger of escalation and Mutually Assured Destruction), before the guns started firing?
What is the pattern here?
5
-
5
-
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
So British leaders bombed the British Empire into ruin.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
Sorreeee. That's what happens when you make the wrong "fwiends".
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Nice exchange.
The current generation of kiddies can chant "Bomber Harris do it again" for all eternity.
It only cost the Brits their Empire...
Seems like a fair deal.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join up...
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
5
-
5
-
US Congressperson Dan Crenshaw (note his military background, therefore knowledge about strategies) recently stated re. the concept of "rather letting them fight over there" (ref.to the strategy of "the proxy"), after a 40 billion aid package to the Ukraine: “Yeah, because investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea. You should feel the same.” (in a "shame game" with Republicans via Twitter who voted against the aid package).
Yup.
A "great idea" (sic.) to fund others fighting over there, so we don't have to fight them, and earn some "donations" along the way. What's there not to like?
One might think that this is "anecdotal", but as Napoleon said only the coward won't tell you what he thinks in your face. And there are a ton of cowards in the field of politics.
One might think whatever one wants about Dan Crenshaw, but at least he is honest.
If anybody ends up in a muddy trench, it's not his fault.
Of course, its never the fault of the "system" he's in called "world alpha" either, since it's a free world, and if you're stupid enough to end up in the "muddy trench" fighting so that men like him (or, his "buddies" in "the system") can rake in obscene profits in the rackets they will always vote against avoiding, it's not his issue.
He'll be in church on Sundays, praying the loudest, and he'll be on twitter on Monday, making fun of those not smart enough.
I assume, he'll have his "flock" of supporters, irrelevant of what he utters.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The reality/status quo around 1900:
A geographical advantage (island status) gave Britain (unlike land powers) the ability to choose alliances without consequences, as long as she had an overpowering navy which could ward of invasions.
London was in the lucky geographical position (island) to be able to simply shift her temporary alliances (aka "favoritism") back and forth.
During peace times: "friends" one day, "rivals" the next.
During war: "ally" in one war, "enemy" in the next war. Note: the cogs in this clockworks tick almost imperceptually slowly. Most people simply don't care or don't notice.
Anyway...
London thus "balanced powers". By own confession: hop on "the scale" here one time, hop on another side another.
Her army was always kept small in times of peace, and rapidly "boosted" in times of war, and thrown in on the side of the weaker power/country/alliance.
Her navy was always the major military investment (irrelevant of war or peace) to keep enemies at bay. Worked well up to WW2, when a sudden technological boost (aviation/nukes) meant that that age-old strategy was no longer effective.
Land powers did not have this advantage of being able to distance themselves from neighbors.
Since (logically) they could be invaded much simpler, especially if such countries/alliances had long borders. Land forces are far simpler to "boost" for invading neighbors (aka "mobilization"), than to rapidly increase a navy to invade GB which already had the advantage of an overpowering navy in peacetime.
In a nutshell: You can stick a gun into the hand of a factory worker or farmer overnight, and have a million+ army within a few days, but you can't conjure a massive navy out of a sleeve in the same time.
Up to WW1, it was geography which gave London the upper hand re. "choice".
From the turn of the century, gaining rapid momentum after WW1, the geographical advantage which London enjoyed for around a hundred years, shifted rapidly to the USA. After 1945 the USA had the geographical advantage, the technological edge, the overwhelming economic power, the inancial leverage = political leverage, the military might (now including the advantage of the largest navy) to simply do what it wanted, and have the "leverage" re. deals made, and the advantage to be able to simply walk away without having to fear consequences (same as London did until WW1).
A rather simple exercise in "who rules the world"...
5
-
5
-
5
-
One cannot, and does not have to.
Do not overthink...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Back in the 1990s Tel Aviv was sneakily trying to introduce Apartheid, at the same time South Africa was busy ending it under international pressure. Of course, Israel was (according to imperialist logic) "doing nothing wrong"...
At the time the world was applauding South Africa as it ended Apartheid, and simultaneously the world was applauding Israel's attempt at introducing Apartheid, branding it as just "trying to create peace."
Note, whilst singling out the Palestinians/Arafat as being "unreasonable" and "rejecting the Israeli olive leaf of peace...blah, blah..." as the accepted narrative of the Mainstream Media.
Israel never intended for Palestinians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, "We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [edit: the historical examples being the "Apartheid dependencies," of the "Bantustan"] ... and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines ... The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term ... Jerusalem (would be) united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty ... will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev. We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth."
All the questionable clauses, eluding reality by use of the typical vague political doublespeak, have been highlighted.
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control. What that would have meant, we see today. Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city.
Notice how Rabin, commonly held as a dove in politics, never used the term "full sovereign state" when he referred to this "Palestine", but the term "less than a state." Did you spot the use of [Israel's] "natural growth"? Critical question... Where to? Where would Israelis/Zionists "naturally grow" to, if there were equal neighbours, as a balanced power, which could actually stop any such Zionist settler "growth". The Jordan Valley, extends BOTH sides of the Jordan River. Now, I'm sure that was just another slip-up too, of people who don't understand simple geography. Whatever. It is fairly clear what they wanted, and there are historical examples for this: the "pool of cheap labor" within the own borders, as the concept of the "Bantustan" was for the RSA, given a little bit of "independence" to manage some of the own affairs, but de facto/de jure powerless to stop the CONTROLLING power, intended to be Jerusalem, as Jweish capital city with the right to introduce permit laws, etc. It is literally what RSA did with their "Bantustans". Back then the people could not be fooled. They saw through the deceit, and rightfully called it out for what it was: just another Apartheid ploy to avoid the rise of political equals.
Sad reality? Today masses of fools are being mislead into praising Israel's attempted implementation of Apartheid as an attempt at peace, while at the same time denouncing a similar scheme actually implemented by the RSA in stages after WW2, as being bigoted/racist.
"Imperialism" and apartheid (divide-and-rule as minority CONTROL) has been sugar-coated under the guise of "freedom" or "western values", incidentally the same slogans which were used 100 years ago at the height of colonialism/Western imperialism.
The doublespeak to mislead the masses is exactly the same.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
In early August a new report (in Berlin) stated that GB would not stay out of the war...
Of course GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs.
Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent.
Of course, London already knew this.
That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem:
Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900).
And so "poor little Belgium" was born.
Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"...
France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war.
The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about-turn Jedi mind-control trick :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first.
Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals.
It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up.
Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights".
It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal.
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened. The word "rule" also constitutes a "trigger", or natural aversion, which would mean psychologically oposing a theory, simply based on the words used.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please, lol.
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage (see below comments thread for a few). These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favoratism.
"Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Spot on.
There was no testing.
For weeks the virus was allowed to spread, and the complacency at this point was blatant.
It was even called out at the time so nobody can say the Trump admin and other countries didn't screw up.
Trump, for example, just now said that he was "cheerleading", thereby practically admitting that he was trying to gloss over the danger the USA was in at the time he was downplaying it, by distracting the American people with dumb bs...
Look at South Korea.
They implemented a plan right from the start...test, isolate, test again, isolate, test again and again, isolate, repeat, repeat, repeat...
Now that's what I call a plan.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
In 1945, the crowds understandably cheered the end of the war...
Meanwhile as the crowds cheered and jeered, in the background, big daddy USA ate up the British Empire:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Like like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon"...
Where are all the BBC documentaries informing the public about these postwar events?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@thulyblu5486 Agreed, and good response.
The formulation for the declaration of war was simply semantics, to shift the onus back to Berlin. It was a cleverly constructed "if sentence" (conditional) meaning that if Germany retreated from Poland, there would be no war. But if Germany continued, there would be war.
Doesn't change anything about the reality though, that it was GB and France which needed this war in order to protect their empires, NOT "poor Poland" which was just the "trigger" or justification to hide the fact that for London and Paris it would have been unacceptable to have Germany and the SU in an alliance, without an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" Poland in the middle, which could serve as a proxy in case of war on the continent.
That was geopolitics as revealed by Mackinder back in 1904 already. It was always about avoiding the potential "single hegemony" taking shape, and to avoid it, and if all else failed, then by declaring war.
5
-
Excellent.
But there is a bigger picture to all of this.
The entire system they favor in the West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often repeated nice-sounding storyline.
The graphic depiction of Yin and Yang is not only valid about the "good vs bad" dichotomy (Taoism), but can also apply to the model of "UNITY/CONCORD" vs "DIVISION/DISCORD".
As the model of Yin and Yang states, there is always some good in the bad, and always some bad in the good, and equilibrium is hard to achieve since human nature tends to allow the pendulum to swing past the point of equilibrium, towards the other pole. Equally, every system based on division per default, always contains some elements of forces of unity. And, the other way around: systems based on the default setting that unity is the main principle, will always contain elements of division. When studying thousands of man-made systems, one reaches the conclusion that some are more "top down" UNITY with some lower tiered "freedoms" allowed in order to keep the peace, whilst others are more "bottom up freedoms" with restrictions applying. Both meet in the middle somewhere, and then try to constantly balance powers between the various factions. A "Republic" is already a "meet-in-the-middle" approach, since it divides power on multiple tiers.
What happened in Europe post-1900 can be juxtaposed onto China's recent relevant history of trying to break free from Western dominated imperialism.
To anybody who knows a bit of Chinese history, it becomes clear that our Western narrative of "WW2" does NOT apply to China, since China was already in a more or less bloody war between outside imperialists and meddlers (dividers of Chinese unity using local proxies). During its Century of Humiliation, China was a classical case of "war/policy/division" by proxy. Proxies were employed, funded, armed, and financed to achieve the division of China during the Era of European Imperialism.
The dividers have it easy.
All they have to do to create regional/global division, is to continuously lie to foster dissent, covertly steal for inequality, always meddle using political favouritism, and eternally instigate violence, by either outright declaring war or simply allowing wars to happen (not stop these wars, aka "enabling war as eternal event).
The local political forces had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER during the 19th and 20th centuries. The local strategists used old strategies to try to re-introduce a fully sovereign China. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for Chinese interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside imperialist powers and their proxy rule and domination. During these roughly 100 years, the European imperialist powers were later joined by the USA and Japanese imperialist powers, and later Soviet and Western ideologies, all continuously using China as battleground. Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided Chinese systems, is of course a dumb strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. If weak, and while weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division. You don't fight fire with fire, but with water.
One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity.
Therefore when studying the "WW2" part of the Chinese Century of Humiliation (1839-1947), it becomes clear why the western proxy Chiang-Kai Shek was accused by his allies of "hoarding" his Lend-Lease, and not doing more to fight the Japanese. The local proxies in China during this battle of "post-WW1 China" as yet another link between Ww1 and WW2, were already preparing for the war they KNEW would follow AFTER the Western narrative of "WW2" ended, and the West conveniently disposed of one of these outside proxies (Japan plus local collaborators). That WW2 had already resulted in a weakening of the European powers, for the benefit of whoever was left (grand strategy) was also already clear.
WW1 and WW2 were one global struggle with multiple layers and which merely had a 20 year gap in between.
Do we live in eternal peace interspersed by wars, or do we live in eternal war, interspersed by peace?
In the eternal battle between unity/concord and division/discord, it is we who waste our time arguing.
Who is right or wrong?
Is it the "weak" who are right/wrong or the "strong"?
Is it some the "the West" or is it some of "the rest"?
Is it the "democracies" or is it the "autocracies"?
Is it the "attacker" or the "defender"?
Is it the "blue team" or the "yellow team".
As they point fingers vigorously, arguing their "my ingroup" against "your ingroup"-dichotomies, here is one thing the opposites don't realize as they argue like children.
Who gains from division?
Who gains from unity?
As they extend themselves, weaken themselves and end up totally exhausted with arguments, they don't realize they are all the victims of the biggest lie in history.
Who gains from eternal division?
Qui bono?
The finger pointers are at the receiving end of the biggest joke of history, for as they point the finger at someone else to try to pass the blame for their own previous actions, they stumble in broad daylight, and fall for the false prophets who deceive them.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@chippewaguy4193 Not even the "hindsight" excuse is valid.
In reality it was a lack of foresight, and sheer stupidity.
Because interestingly at the same time as German industrialisation after their 1871 unification, there was another "power" concurrently rising on the other side of the Atlantic.
Concerning "the biggest picture of all", aka "geopolitics", they too, were in the advantageous position of a having geographical advantage. Only this time, the rise of technology (steam trains, railways, steam ships, turbines, etc.) at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th Century, meant that the geographical advantages the American Century enjoyed, would eventually surpass the geographical advantage of the rather narrow English Channel.
Similarly to London concerning the continent...
[Search for: Splendid_isolation]
...Washington DC could similarly innocently claim to be "just isolating" themselves, while at the same time gaining from the mistakes of other less "isolatable" European powers...
The world was M-A-I-N after all, so why not? :-)
After WW1 and especially WW2, Washington DC was now in the same situation as GB was pre-WW1. The Atlantic as a "barrier" between the Americas and Europe, had supplanted (in importance) the English Channel as the barrier between GB and the continent.
They had the political "leverage" to impose a favorable geopolitical situation for themselves.
After 100 years of playing "balancing games" with the continent, the British Empire became a victim of their own "game".
That isn't "hindsight".
More like sheer ignorance, stupidity, arrogance of power, misuse of a geographical advantage, short-sightedness...
And if you give me a few more minutes, I can come up with a few more terms...
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The USA is the most warlike nation in the history of the world due to its desire to impose American values on other countries and make them the mirror image of themselves. Jimmy Carter, when he said that, obviously alluded to US strategy which they copied from the Roman Empire. On Hawaii, they took it to extremes, turning the local culture into a "Disney World"-style "cultural experience" for hambuger munching, Coke slurping overweight ignoramuses from the mainland, as entertaiment (Roman "Bread and Circusses"-strategy for the masses).
What made Eurooeans think their "empires" would fare any better than Native Americans (§§§footnote), stuck into the "cabooses" of the American Century, turned into "cultural experiences" to be mass-consumed?
See the definition of a "caboose", and who said it. It wasn't me. It was the planners of the American Century, when they discussed the future of Europeans, INCL. THE BRITISH EMPIRE.
Reality? One can "conquer" a system using other means: debt, for example. John Quincy Adams said "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." Woodrow Wilson stated in 1917: "England and France have not the same views with regard to peace that we have by any means. When the war is over we can force them to our way of thinking because by that time they will, among other things, be financially in our hands ...". In a capitalist society, debt is a good way to first entrap, then liberate those who had overleveraged of their arduously assembled assets. States are amoral: they do not act out of benevolence for other systems. With World War 1 the Europe of pre-1914 had either destroyed itself or was overleveraged in debt, and that was going to be exploited in the realist world.
While London was occupied trying to play "divide and rule"-games with their continental neighbors, the USA was playing "divide and rule"-games with EUROPE. Europe of course, from THEIR perspective, incl. GB/British Empire..
§§§footnote
The US is "the most warlike nation in the history of the world (due to its desire to impose American values on other countries)" - Jimmy Carter, 2019
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Start pulling the rug from underneath their feet...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Bunch of snowflakes in the comments section.
Hasan is right.
Stop the emotional arguments....
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Truth is, meddling 'murica loooooves Jihadists, just not when they hit you in the face....
Let’s look at specific countries, and US meddling in THEIR world, shall we?
No more "fluffy emotions".
Comments welcome....
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Yes.
It's "divide and rule."
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or the British Empire's Mackinder/Pivot of History before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their geographical advantage.
With re. to how tools to implement the strategy are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as Kissinger implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combated by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today.
Today as we watch on, the Ukraine is being burnt to the "last Ukrainian soldier" accompanied by cheers of "...but, but, but they had a choice!!"
Poland will be next to be given a "choice," if the Ukraine fails as US/Western proxy and tool, in a long list of previous examples of the Washington DC/Pentagon-steered global strategy.
5
-
5
-
March and boycott.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The "mask" has never been on. The USA is what it always was. A politico-economic system which has always intended to gain, if all others lost. You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works."
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others.
The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same strategies of expansion as they did 500, 200 and 100 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care. As always, the warning voices of the sane halves are ignored, downplayed, "finger pointed" at as "unpatriotic," or as being "in bed with the enemy", and many other forms of equally "rhyming history." It is what they spend billions on every year so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching to the jolly tunes.
The systems and corporations came in droves for SYSTEMIC EXPANSION and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE...
A little piece over here for a little American/NATO base.
A nice little piece over there, of the Nordstream project.
A piece of the Panama Canal.
A tiny sliver of those Ukrainian raw materials.
A nice little chunk of a percentage of political influence.
And ALL of Greenland...
The meddling created by the own proactive divide-and-rule strategy of power then results in effects:
Imperialistic meddling is always a CAUSE to which there will be a resulting EFFECT.
5
-
not today Just like prior to WW1 there are 2 major geopolitical historical events unfolding.
One is the US wish to attack and carry out a regime change in Iran, which Moscow opposes (google the New Silk Road or Belt Initiative, the "southern prong" of which goes through Iran, and the Persian Gulf)
The second is encircling China.
Yup.
The geopolitics of trying to "cordon off" rivals are strikingly similar. Before WW1, it was France/Russia trying to cordoning off Germany/Austria-Hungary (Central Powers) with a ring of alliance partners.
France, in the west, a hostile Russia in the east.
GB's RN in the position to cut off the north, in case of war, closed the gap to the north in 1907. That only left a small corridor of access either through Serbia, or Austria-Hungary's ports in the Adriatic (threatened by British hegemony over Greece).
Today, we see a similar strategy concerning China.
Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines controlling sea access to the east. Trump playing it nice with Putin/Russia [yup, "collusion" in some form or other is real. Geopolitics almost dictates it to be true], would cut off the north-west/north-east. A more hostile India, will cover the south-west sector...almost there.
That only leaves a narrow corridor of access to the south, in the South China Sea. The Sprattly Islands...
History might not always be 100% the same, but it certainly rhymes.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Smart leaders.
Too bad we had too few...
Let them 2 "slug it out" to utter exhaustion.
Without the logistics of Lend Lease's 600,000 vehicles of all types (note: almost as much as Nazi Germany produced in 5 years), 1000 steam engines, etc. the Eastern Front would have stabilized somewhere between the Baltic States and the Ukraine.
Recipe for success?
Just enough Lend Lease to avoid the collapse of the SU.
Not enough for them to storm into Central Europe (see "logistics" = trucks, etc.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
A little bit of gain for the Nazis for a few months, a little bit of gain for the commies for a few months. See-sawing their way into oblivion.
Then, in 1945: D-Day
Our soldiers and tanks rolling past Berlin (shooting Hitler "like a snake" along the way), then liberating Warsaw, Prague, Budapest...
No Nazis.
No commies.
No Cold War.
No Russians storming past Berlin and gaining access to German technology, which they'd use against us after 1945.
(Capturing nuclear and rocket scientists, Tabun and Sarin poison plants, chemical engineers, radar technology, latest jet engine tech, entire underground production plants, etc., etc.)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global "balance of power", to avoid a few million gaining at the expense of billions, as the USA/collective West has done these past 500 years.
I'm sure Chinese and Russian leaders will imnediately agree to this, and our US/collective West will do as they've always done: pretend to wish to "sign up for it" overtly and ostentatiously (doves), but use deception to torpedo such attempts of global equillibrium covertly (hawks).
Good cop (neolibs), bad cop (neocon).
Divide-and-rule.
5
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. The USA could afford to wait. Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
5
-
5
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Bombing German factories was counterproductive in 2 main ways.
1) German "factories" was not what limited German production, but rather the lack of raw materials.
2) after WW2, the new "alpha" Washington DC actually needed both Germany and Japan (the losers) as much as they did GB, France and their empires (the winners). So that by opening up the markets in the US sphere of interest, Germany and Japan quickly recovered, and with a completely modernized economy, quickly overtook GB. There was no alternative, because if not, both would have fallen to communism.
GB, and Empire was seen as a rival, and was "cut down to size".
London no longer had the "leverage" to stand up to Washington DC, and were overpowered. Note, overpowering does not necessarily mean war.
Economic warfare is an old established method.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
So after WW2 while the British population and economy were being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, were having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, were still on war rations till way into the 1950s, and lost the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...
So the London lords woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best friends forever" had stolen all their markets.
And that's how "leverage" works.
Washington DC: "I've taken over almost all your markets now. What are you going to do about it?"
Sad reality?
There was nothing London could do about it.
Washing DC had more leverage to impose, and they took over from their former colonial masters.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
This is the theory.
According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules.
According to the concept of "meaning of words" all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life (50% for us, the minority), on ALL tiers, often by force, coercian, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world).
That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power).
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The easiest argument against the "repeat the mistake of 1938"-line of argumentation is this:
There need never have been a "Hitler" to "deal with", and a "Sudetencrisis of 1938", if decency had been the principle after WW1, the so-called "war to end all wars".
The old trope of "self-determination" in all those "kindly-worded" declarations of the past: if not granted as a universal principle, it is of course nothing else but Divide and Rule/Conquer if it is only implemented selectively to selected few geographically/strategecally vital "friends".
"The right of a people to self-determination[1] is a cardinal principle in modern international law ... It states that peoples, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.[4] ... The concept was first expressed in the 1860s, and spread rapidly thereafter.[5][6] During and after World War I, the principle was encouraged by both Soviet Premier Vladimir Lenin and United States President Woodrow Wilson.[5][6] Having announced his Fourteen Points on 8 January 1918, on 11 February 1918 Wilson stated: "National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. 'Self determination' is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action." [Wiki]
It was also trolled as "a right" by so-called "leaders" long before it became codified under international law.
"Trolled" to the masses of course, because the intention by "the few" in real positions of power was never to reach "fairness" as a universal principle, but to implement "divide and rule/conquer"-policies.
True back then. True today.
International law means nothing.
Like the people of Northern Ireland (loyalists) were granted the right to determine their own political future. They wanted to belong to the British Empire? Fine. Do not contest their right to choose. "Draw a line" around them...
Self-determination status: Badly implemented, but OK...at least "honored".
Like the the people of Gibraltar, or the Falklands today have the right to determine their own political future. If they want to belong to the remnants of the British Empire? Fine. Do not contest their right to choose, or invade them...
Self-determination status: Honored.
Just like the people in Scotland have the right to determine their own political future, and seperate from the UK if they wish to do so as majority (free will). Inform them of potential harmful future effects of such own choices, but allow them to choose.
Self-determination status: Honored.
Just like the people of that old artificial entity "Yugoslavia" (once historically imposed top down) had the right to determine their own political future (1990s). Due to the actions of "wannabe"-alphas in Belgrade, the people decided to create new countries , to create new alliances, and to re-align.
Self-determination status: Historical past error (divide and rule of the Balkans) corrected.
And the people of that old artificial entity called "Czechoslovakia" (historically imposed top down by giving a "favored status to Chechs and Slovaks) were given the right to determine their own political future. After the "old alpha" (UdSSR) crumbled, the people weighed potential advantages/disavantages and decided to send "Czechoslovakia" to the grave...
Self-determination status: Historical past error corrected (divide and rule of Central Europeans by France/GB).
Just like the people of the Sudan were given the right to determine their own political future. They created 2 new countries, where none were before. Fine. Whatever keeps the (sort of) peace, and helps stave off eternal civil wars...
Self-determination status: Historical past error belatedly corrected (colonialism: old "contested sphere of influence" between GB and France).
The people of the Krim Pininsula were given the same rights as everybody else expected for themselves of course. The people were given the right to choose their own destiny. Fine. Whatever keeps the peace, and helps stave off eternal civil war...oh wait. That didn't happen...
Self-determination status: Not honored.
In 1919 the people of the Sudetenland should have been given the same rights as everybody else expected for themselves (the same as for example, the loyalists in N.Ireland).
Self-determination status: Not honored.
Lines were randomly drawn, and the kindly-worded declarations meant nothing.
We can carry on with such examples of "granted" vs. "not granted" for a long time.
All such examples will reveal the random implementation.
We are also confronted with the effects of hypocrisy.
It is called "history".
Simple rule of decency: Let the same count for all as a universal principle.
Do onto others, as you wish to be done onto.
Want a peacefull world? Don't play "divide and rule"-games with human beings...
If the "done onto"-part only depends on having the right temporary friends and not "right/wrong" as a principle, then expect eternal war.
Welcome to the world of "Divide and Rule/Conquer".
As long as key decision re. "who to award territory to" is not taken out of the hands of power mongers (of any side), and placed into the hands of the people who are affected, there will not be peace.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Yes, I agree, absolutely vile....
"Since World War II, during a supposed golden age of peace, the United States military has killed or helped kill some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 84 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. The United States is responsible for the deaths of 5 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and over 1 million just since 2003 in Iraq.
Since 2001, the United States has been systematically destroying a region of the globe, bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, not to mention the Philippines. The United States has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces in three-quarters of them."
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the IDF, have been occupying this concept of the "Bantustan" one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
antred11 Firstly, Goebels and all the other Nazi elite were criminals. The Berlin speech was a staged propaganda show, and you are therefore quoting a criminal (speaking in front of a bunch of commandeered party followers) to justify the act of soldiers killing unarmed civilians. Hitler ans his criminal clique did not have the authority to speak for the German nation, since he was a dictator (who, against popular myth, was NOT voted for).
When did I ever say that I was generally against the use of bombing to limit the industrial power of an enemy?
I said I was against the use of armed soldiers (under the ORDER of a higher command) to kill unarmed civilians. Research the RAF's Directive Nr. 5, issued to Bomber Command in February 1942 (for example on Wikipedea). It was an order issued to soldiers kill civilians.
Your last paragraph is the result of incorrect comparisons. German bomber crews were never given the direct order to kill civilians. There was always a military/industrial/infrastructure target. This is also true for RAF raids until the March 1942 raid on Rostock. Rostock was the first WW2 attack in which the bomber crews were given the direct order to "de-house" civilians (a palatable way of ordering soldier to target and kill unarmed and innocent civilians).
Proof of this is the fact that Goering (head of the German Luftwaffe) was never accused of illegal orders in respect to the bombing of targets in cities, even though he had been captured. If the German raids were illegal, why was he not accused?
IMHO, this change of targets after the Directive Nr. 5, was a war crime. If you are going to insist that directly targeting civilians is a fair way of combat, you must also accept that terrorists are going to use the same argument (i.e. that the people working in the World Trade Center were contributing to the US economy, by way of the taxes they paid, etc., and therefore fair game).
Again, to make it perfectly clear, the Nazi invasions and subsequent atrocities were terrible war crimes, but but it did not justify the killing of people who were not responsible for these crimes. Furthermore, bombing people who don't know why they are being attacked is counter-productive. It merely make them mad at the attacker, and stiffens their resistance. They will fight back, and rally around the only place they can turn to. Their leadership. The result was a LONGER war, not shorter. The best case scenario was that it made no difference.
Thank you for reading and at least giving my opinion a thought.....
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The destruction of German cities and, collective punishment of entire populations(with the subsequent retrospective justification from a 1945 POV) was one of the most ridiculous and counter productive exercises in warfare ever. To illustrate why I say this, consider this objective chain of events.
Episode 1: The Area Bombing Directive, and OFFICIAL British government POLICY
According to the Area Bombing Directives of February 1942 "...entire cities were to be targeted..." (carpet bombing of city centers, hidden behind euphemisms like "de-housing" or "workforce"). For the next three years, this would be the policy followed by Bomber Command, and a majority (not all) raids were carried out according to this principle.
How effective was this to reduce the pressures of Allied soldiers fighting on the front lines? How effective was this to aid the ground forces, the ONLY forces which have the ability to end wars?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive
Episode 2 Around two years later.
One of the most feared German weapons of WW2 was the Tiger tank, built at the Henschell plant in Kassel. Kassel was "blasted as a whole" in October 1943. The entire city center was destroyed and about 10,000 "enemy" women and kids were burned to a cinder. According to the Area Bombing advocates, it was "a huge success".
Of course, according to the Area Bombing policy, the well-known heavy industrial plant, Henschell wasn't the target of this raid. An indirect result of the raid was that Tiger production rose from 1943 (650 built) to 1944 (around 1000 Tiger I and II).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Kassel_in_World_War_II
Episode 3 Normandy
The 13th June 1944 was the blackest day in the history of the British 7th Armored Division. In the space of 15 minutes, Michael Wittman, commander of a Tiger tank, went on a rampage, and killed 230 young British soldiers, and 29 AFV's (tanks and APCs).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann
Episode 4 Today
Here's the million dollar question.
Would Wittman have been able to to the same on 13th June 1944, had his Tiger tank been destroyed in the October 1943 attack on Kassel? Would he have been able to single-handedly kill 230 young men, if he had been sitting on a bicycle, armed with an old rifle ? (because the heavy industry producing modern tanks had been destroyed in 1943/44)
Nor were all those other young Allied soldiers, who were blown to bits on the battlefields by weapons which could have been destroyed in the factories if the right decisions had been made in 1942. Despite bombing the sh*t out of city centers (or,..maybe BECAUSE of bombing city centers?), German armament production rose dramatically until the final quarter of 1944.
My personal conclusion?
Utter folly to gloat over the deaths over hundreds of thousands, and there are still people who revere men like Portal and Harris as "far sighted". Their decisions indirectly led to the needless deaths of scores of OWN soldiers.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Sophie Dockx True. Back then, the world was as complicated as the one we live in today.
The leaders back then had it just as difficult as our leaders do today — since a reliable crystal ball has not been invented yet :-)
That leaves leaders to take calculated risks...
In case of 'who caused WW2?' Chamberlain or Hitler, the answer for me is easy — Hitler and Stalin :-)
The two villains, who had signed the dirty deal which caused WW2, since without knowing how Stalin would react to a German invasion of Poland, Hitler's hands were tied...
The reason I say Hitler and Stalin, and not Chamberlain and Daladier, is because Chamberlain's carefully laid out strategy of containing Nazi Germany by using Poland as a proxy (based on the belief of an irreconcilable hatred between the 2 entirely different ideologies separating Nazism and Stalinism) was foiled when Hitler sent feelers, and Stalin greedily offered the N/A pact in August 39 (with its land-grabbing 3rd partitioning of Poland, amongst others).
Could that really have been foreseeable in 1939?
That basically blew Chamberlain's plan, and the fact that it was so unexpected shows how far most people (leaders and commoners alike) had underestimated the two totalitarian dictators.
Can we really blame the people at the time for this?
IMO, Chamberlain's actions did not cause the war, since it is really irrelevant what Chamberlain did or didn't do, there would have been a war anyway.
I prefer to base my criticism of past events on whether an action was motivated by higher or lower moral reasoning.
In this case my personal opinion is that I'll forgive Chamberlain, for his intentions were pure (keep Czech independence intact), by 'signing away' the 3 million German speakers who should never have been a part of the artificial entity called "Czechoslovakia" in the first place (...the failings of Versailles are an entirely different debate, but a given factor in 1938...)
Furthermore, Chamberlain's motivation was peace, whereas the two dictators motives were war.
Stalin knew EXACTLY that Hitler would invade Poland, the moment the pact was signed, leaving millions of Poles to their fate....
In August 1939, the sole determining factor of 'war or peace', was Josef Stalin.
He could have chosen life for millions of people, yet he chose death...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
John Koslowsky Look no further than the mass stupidity of most human beings, and inability to think for themselves --then you will know why wars are always possible.
Are you saying that wars are fought solely because of the interests of the '1%-ers' of the world? I entirely agree. Anybody who believes that wars are fought because of 'our friends need help' or ' oh, those poor people' is obviously an ignorant fool, who will simply allow himself to be used as a tool to advance the agenda of others.
In this game, the one sides fools are as stupid as the others. They allow themselves to be herded like sheep, manipulated like 5-year olds, and ordered around like dogs. All for the goal of being king of the mountain.
They are all losers though....
Is this entire process steered by unseen forces?
I guess this is where we part. There is simply no need for great conspiracy theories, since human characteristics ( fear, greed, ignorance, indifference, pride, patriotism, stupidity, lack of empathy, hate, gullibility, etc.) is enough to set in motion, and keep in motion this process of mistakes/ misunderstandings, leading to crises, and leading to wars.
Do bankers, financiers, industrialists and other '1%-ers' make enormous profits from the misery of wars? If course they do.
Do they also have to conspire to start wars? No need, since there is enough stupidity going around to make them rub their hands in glee for the next thousand years...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"Everyone who wants to know what will happen ought to examine what has happened: everything in this world in any epoch has their replicas in antiquity." Niccolò Machiavelli
If you study enough history, a pattern emerges which exists right through to today.
Regarding how the strategy of divide and rule/conquer works, and how old it is with regards to the the USA and Europe. First US attempts to meddle in Europe for an own gain (independence from London) can be observed even before the USA became independent. Obviously these influential individuals were operating in what was still European spheres of influence in North America (political pro-independence leaders, or other economic and financial elites in the future USA with compatible goals). These gaining powers in North America aimed to secede from the British Empire, and were as British as British lordships got. They therefore knew how London ticked, and what would trigger London into action in the event of ...let's say "events" on the continent of Europe.
London's long-standing policy for the continent of Europe was to "avoid the single hegemony" or any too strong power (single country, alliance or otherwise) to take shape on the continent of Europe.
How does one goad others into war? How does one goad London into a war on the continent, thereby creating the shadow one could operate in to secure the own post-revolutionary security, and in order to achieve own expansive goals in North America?
Obviously, by aiding in the achievement of a bigger system on the continent of Europe, which would then be extending London, by coaxing London to engage in Europe to "avoid the single hegemony on the continent."
These "lords"-types in North America still ticked the same way their cousins in London ticked.
Set others up against each other, employing whatever political means were available.
Short history of that, and on the parallel track to the European history (compartmentalized history): send revolutionary training experts (Jefferson, Adams) to Europe, to sow dissent with COLOR REVOLUTION-style ops (§footnote 1), in the opposing system Europe as best possible with limited means, and thereby weakening potential European opposition to the own expansion. This was by way of making use of French intentions, by strengthening the French position, which was being suspiciously checked by neighbors Great Britain, Prussia, etc...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batavian_Republic
These French ambitions here, aided along by whatever powers the still largely powerless fledgling USA could muster (quote): "In early 1795, intervention by the French Republic led to the downfall of the old Dutch Republic. The new Republic enjoyed widespread support from the Dutch populace and was the product of a genuine popular revolution. However, it was founded with the armed support of the French revolutionary forces. The Batavian Republic became a client state, the first of the "sister-republics", and later part of the French Empire of Napoleon. Its politics were deeply influenced by the French, who supported no fewer than three coups d'état to bring the different political factions to power that France favored at different moments in its own political development..."
A COLOR REVOLUTION 1.0.
It was in these political waters that Jefferson and Adams subsequently swam like fish, as explained in the footnote...
What weight such actions by such power players carried in dividing Europeans at the time (late 18th century) is irrelevant. What role it played in creating a more powerful France, to "extend London/British Empire", equally so.
It is in studying the events themselves that the pattern or strategy emerges.
After their own independence (1776), achieved by operating in the shadows cast by Paris' unfolding ambitions for the French Empire in Europe, the power players in North America instigated the step 1) of achieving the single hegemony in North America with an own war...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
...whilst London was suitably "extended" keeping an eye on the continent (see RAND Report 2019, for the use of similar language for modern times).
Washington DC could then expand outwards into all the Americas, fighting war after war to avoid the threat of a 2-front war-scenario for the brand new USA , still stuck between the vestiges of European powers in North America, and what still remained of Native American tribal systems, which was slowly being ground down and pushed westwards in war after war.
N.E.W.S. = North, East, West, and South, but mostly West and South at the expense of weak neighbors (Spain, Native American tribal homelands), and squeeze out vestiges of European colonial powers France and Great Britain, or turn them into "weak neighbors, fish on both sides" (Bismarck quote), in a step by step approach.
Later on during the 19th century, further European actions bound European attention, notably Bismarck's unification (1862 - 1871) of the future Germany, meaning that European imperialist powers' ability to avoid further US territorial gains would be more limited in impact (strategy of binding resources or keeping the focus in Europe). Again, another limited war in North America, the American Civil War, operated in this "power vacuum" because other European states' attentions were bound to the continent of Europe. The neighbors' focus was here, closer to the own core heartlands. During these two crucial phases of gaining the continental hegemony, Washington DC's actual power to divide Europeans was still low, but it was put into effect as best possible.
That included having Russia as the current best friend (favoritism, or an "anchor/foothold", a "divide and rule"-strategy, (see §footnote 2) in Europe until roughly the late-19th century, and shifting favor from one to the other for own gain.
Washington DC turned away from this "defensive realism" approach around the year 1900, and changed over towards ever more "offensive realism" (John Mearsheimer) after achieving a consolidation of power on the entire continent, after the American Civil War, and the subsequent Era of Reconstruction from 1866 to 1877 (roughly in parallel to Bismarck's unification of Germany, which bound London and Paris attentions). Again, the possibility these powers had to exploit US division at this point, was limited by the need to focus on the own doorsteps (Central Europe and Italy).
Also after that, right through to today, the dividers of Europeans in Washington DC found easy prey amongst the "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling European nations, and their "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling" leaderships...
Having millions of citizens being tutored into being "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling", means to be easily divided, in the divide and rule/conquer strategy of an outside power, the Washington DC power players. Starting around 1900, they played European leaders "like fiddles", employing mainly "favoritism".
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Lot's of arguing in the comments section, I'm sure strategists like Henry Kissinger (were he still alive) would be having a good laugh looking at his (quote) "dumb stupid animals" incapable of figuring out the big picture...
The events later called WW1 & WW2 were a part of the same conflagration which started around the year 1900, with the naval powers encircling their continental neighbours.
For the American Century after the year 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger chunk of land than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": the technique used by Washington DC was the same, which is to make use of existing divisions. An ACTIVE means, of making use of such divisions, is known as the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy. A proactive means to further own interests at the expense of others, is to favor some (increasing the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decreasing the power of the snubbed).
For the ACTIVELY ENGAGED "divider" the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in order to achieve the useful division for the higher power, are not important. These are the 99% ancillary details of history. It doesn't matter how division is implemented, or how existing divides are deepened, or who aids for whatever reasons, or whether those aiding and abetting division are even aware that they are aiding division: what matters is that it is implemented.
For the divider it is not important why the tools cooperate, but the fact that the tools cooperate in creating division in overpowering a chunk of the planet somewhere.
Why and that are different premises...
The empire in search of gain disguised by the "only interests"-narrative, does not care about the "why" or "what" you think is "true"...
The conflagration unfolding after 1914 was another European 30 years war (with a 20-year break in between) and had virtually the same powers set up against each other, with a few exceptions (Japan and Italy as newbies or "turncoats"). Details are not important. They are the "99%" of history, which bear no impact on HOW events unfolded.
The powers set up thus were:
1) the naval powers (Great Britain/USA) with their continental "buck catchers" (like France after 1904, and Russia after 1907, for example).
against:
2) the continental alliances, which were encircled and kept from reaching sufficient spheres of influence to grow, by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy started as premeditated action by the naval powers around 1900.
In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", which is a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The end effect of the setup of 1) and 2) was that Western- and Central Europe were virtually destroyed as centers of power, and the USA then used the effect to grind the British Empire into a more manageable "junior partner"-status by use of a premeditated strategy planned after 1940, just after the start of the "second round" of this conflagration. Or as Ricky Gervais would quip, "kick the midget British Empire" in the "bollocks" because after WW2 London was so weak that it could not forge a useful "pattern of relations" (George Kennan, see below) to fight back, and save its own markets from their "best friends".
After 1945 the USA used its own might as "hammer" and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). Stalin (Moscow) of course, smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and the other remaining European states' weaknesses, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2, overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centred imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
All accompanied by fake narratives for the masses, of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the implementation of the American Century®, at the expense of the British Empire)
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
In 1945,for London, there was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games of divide-and-rule, and they were then ruled over, as they once ruled over others.
4
-
Lots of appeals to emotion in the comments section.
Weak arguments for weak minds.
With Lubeck, Rostock, Dresden, Darmstadt, Wurzburg, and other over the top actions to appease the "revenge/reap as you sow/whirlwind"-slogan chanters, European states/empires as powers in a multipolar world which had dominated world affairs till then, was destroyed.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? LOL...
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries.
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
Sad...
Like R.E.H. Dyer, the "hero" of the Amritsar Massacre, Harris and others like him, were the grave digger of the British Empire and only fools would shower them with boyhood-style admiration...
Dyer "only" ordered to open fire on a few 1,000 victims.
Harris ordered to "open fire" on hundreds of thousands.
Dyer was given a hero's welcome when he returned, and was showered with "crowd funded" Pounds of admiration, by a horde of Empire apologists...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
American leaders wanted a 'service economy' for the USA, with the manual labor outsourced onto the rimlands (geopolitics). It is an old Roman strategy of power to create dependencies. A core heartland, surrounded by entire countries as 'workshops'/dollar tributaries for the American Century. This was written out as a desirable outcome, an agenda, in the 1940s ...
Didn't anybody warn these "rimlands" what was coming?
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), (§§§footnote) the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed." SOURCE: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive
US strategist in these think tanks lay out the scheme of what was going to be the new post-war reality, as a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" for the USA to control. Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under US supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.)
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." Note, all words in quotes were actual words used IN THIS OFFICIAL US DOCUMENT, and the thesis and its quoted sources can all be downloaded for free, from the www, and using these key words provided for your search engine.
---------------------------------
After around 1940, ... (quote) "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident (§§§footnote) – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. *Within this framework the role of France, Germany and ENGLAND of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations..."
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world."
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.", Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@pommiebears Why is it "thick" to remind d Americans about being aware of the "seeds" they are sowing?
Remember the Bible?
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Training "terrorists"?
How'd planting that evil seed work out?
4
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS.
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
4
-
"The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: WRONG.
It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid the divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use the technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
The Big Lie is the power of the divide and rule/conquer technique, and even the Nazis hid their "Big Lie"-conspiracy theory, behind an even bigger lie: how they intended to play this game until they got into power after their failed coup d'etat.
The "Big Lie" is not a myth but a misrepresentation of the truth.
It is the power of "divide and rule/conquer" which lurks behind every strategy they follow, in order to gain.
No human being has ever come up with a means to overcome this age-old technique of ruling over billions of people, because it is predicated on human nature itself, which is enduring.
No power player wants to become associated with authoritarian, or "colonial" tactics and strategies, or Nazis, so they cannot use it as a political means to attack rivals: it will immediately result in blowback.
The "Big Lie" conspiracy masked the divide and rule technique.
No power player can ever accuse any other power player of using it, since it will immediately backfire: the accusation of using the technique themselves, which in most cases of intent of gain will even apply***. The disguise usually comes in the form of scapegoating or another form of appeal to the emotion of listeners, or addressing and fortifying their already existing biases.
"Scapegoating" = an appeal to lower emotions of potential supporters.
In our divided societies, appealing to these biases might always be that tiny little "weight" that tilts the scale in very tightly run political elections.
Most power players read books on strategy, with the intention of using these strategies for personal gain, not because they wish to benefit you (the individual).
There is always the urge to defend own favored systems, when one reads perceived "attacks" on these favored systems or own heroes, and the beloved own "-isms", which also reveal standard procedures, meaning the "attacker" soon falls into predetermined pathways to deflect and obfuscate from the core theory...
Great Britain did not "win" from the "divide and rule/conquer" system they had set up in Europe, as a matter of an own London policy standpoint of making the strongest continental power their "default rival/enemy" system.
Britons (average citizens) lost BIG TIME.
If you wish to truly understand the "how" and "why", then go to the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under this video. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
No, these essays are not a "conspiracy theory."
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section):
Most of what we are fed by our systems, as "rote leaning" details, are "99% ancillary details": not saying these are untrue or wrong, but simply that they are not as important on the ranking or "tiers" of events as geopolitics and grand strategy.
For these geostrategists, divide and rule/conquer is their main strategy, regardless of what you as an individual believe.
Footnotes:
* only applies in competitive "intent of gain" systems, not benevolent forms of reciprocal human interaction which are 100% fair...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Before WW1, Belgium was both a strategic barrier, as well as a strategic gateway, depending on how a potential continental European war developed.
The "gatekeepers" sat in London.
In case the European Balance of Power was threatened by Germany (as happened), the propaganda machine would term Belgians as "poor Belgians".
In case of another "Napoleon", and the scenario of the European Balance of Power threatened by France, the gateway that was Belgium would open. In that case, the propaganda machine in GB would term Belgians as "evil Belgians", who were simply "reaping what they had sown in The Kongo"...
Poor "Jack the Plumber", sitting in the pub, quietly drinking his ale: oblivious to what the London lords were up to behind closed doors...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Great interview.
Generally agreed, but around 4:00 Petro ignores the impact of how rescinding Brest-Litovsk led to the forced removal of the hegemonic powers (Central Powers, mainly focused around Berlin), which then "opened the door" for the subsequent communist invasion.
Same as the Ukraine was historically set up before during the year 1918 with the rescinding of Brest-Litovsk, which opened the Ukraine up as a "new front" to attract Moscow's focus away from own Allied invasions, and Allied actions in the Far East, Murmansk, etc. (planned or already ongoing, irrelevant to the timeline).
The Ukraine in 1918, in a state of a relatively peaceful orderly status quo, set up as the sacrificial pawn by rescinding Brest-Litovsk.
The Ukraine, used to goad the new communist rulers in Moscow, to attacking here, away from the own campaigns.
Post-1990s, history rhymed.
The Ukraine around the year 2000, in a state of a relatively peaceful orderly status quo, set up as the sacrificial pawn.
Historically, and here is the crux of the matter, the ONLY times the outside powers boldly interfered in any meaningful way on the continent, is if there was a danger of a "single hegemony" taking shape. They would then step in, using their own IRON AND BLOOD with force, to "avoid the single hegemony," by declaring the worldwide war, out of local conflicts. How many die, is apparently completely irrelevant. And in the future we will see this "pattern" repeating, until European/Eurasian powers unite, and end the pattern of eternally repeating/rhyming history, out of their own free will.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"The opposite for courage is not cowardice, it is conformity. Even a dead fish can go with the flow." -- Jim Hightower
The problem in Europe, which is "rhyming", is too many "dead fish" going with the "flow" of their systems and strategies.
Stalin was the British Empire's most capable apprentice.
After the SU's rise in power, starting with the 5-year plans (1928), Stalin intended to imitate London's strategic standpoint: that of "sitting on the fence" as others AHEM... "extended" each other for the benefit of the own strategic rise, by implementing an own "economic plan" (unbeknownst to most history fans, London had such an "economic plan" to steer wars on the continent, before WW1).
Unlike the strategic advantage provided to London "around 1900" of having a heartland (England) unreachable in any strategically viable way (the the English Channel, and the Royal Navy), Stalin would have to resort to "paper" to protect the Soviet Union's citizens, as he set the Axis free to attack the hated "capitalistas"....
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Strategies as revealed from a primary source, from the memory of those present at a speech Stalin allegedly made on the 19th August 1939, just before enterring a non-agression pact with Germany, the alpha of the system of fascist states, and self-declared enemy of the system of communism. The SU was a power on the periphy of Europe, with vast natural resources which could potentially steer a war in Central Europe, by controlling key raw materials like oil or manganese needed to wage modern wars. By allowing or restricting the flow of such economic means and resources to Germany as a result of an economic treaty as part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of August 1939, the SU could steer events and extend limited wars past a point where it might have naturally stopped previously, by drying up.
History "rhyming", but this time it was Stalin who attempted to "steer" events, with an economic plan.
It is irrelevant how correct the actual words were, or whether these were Stalin's enemies merely trying to get back at him by fabricating a consensus: these are strategies. In view of the fact that the SU did not really need (concept of necessity) such a nonaggression pact, the overall strategic analysis affords weight to the veracity that it was most likely stated by Stalin using these exact, or similar words. "Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible", means that resources like oil are examples of such means. The intention is gain for an own system, for example by furthering the expansion of the own communist system southwards, in the renewed Great Game called the Second Tournament of Shadows against the British Empire, if the resources delivered to Nazi Germany seriously weakened the British Empire's home base in London. By ensuring that warring systems, including Great Britain, end up weakened to a state that (quote) "... both sides become exhausted" so that the rival parties can no longer oppose the expansion and gain of the own system.
Words can be used to enhance (one side) or deflect from (other side) concepts which are the indicative.
Analysis: Grasp the concepts/strategies: the "words" are the ancillaries, made to influence readers.
Today, the "powers" steering the war in the Ukraine are the so-called "superior West", and their "values".
These powers have no incentive to stop the war, and the killing, because the function of the Ukraine is to "extend Russia" (RAND Report, 2019).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Speer is always quoted when he said something which seemingly supported "area bombing" civilians.
Yet, he is never quoted when he pointed out why it failed.
After the Hamburg attack, Allied commanders remained committed to their sharply divergent strategies...and that, in end effect, led to a diversification of the Allied strategic warfare effort.
Instead of focusing and eliminating one key sector of the German war effort at a time, the forces available were wasted on many separate points of attack, blunting their impact.
Speer even sharply criticized this.
He mentioned how the limited forces used in some bombing attacks, led to damage which could be (mostly, not always) relatively quickly repaired. After such repairs, which aided productivity, the plants production was often higher than before the raid. This effectively cancelled out any lost production achieved by the raid.
Furthermore, Speer criticized the long duration between attacking the same targets, meaning that production levels were retained or even increased.
Speer is often quoted for saying things which seem to support the Allied bombing campaign, but he is never quoted when he said something critical.
How come?
4
-
4
-
With regards to how Washington DC in conjuction with their quasi client states, the EU/NATO, will try to "manage" both a potentially possible "more unity in Eurasia", as well as manage/moderate a potentially possible unity amongst the "rimlands" of Asia, Africa, and South America, as we can witness unfolding today in slow steady steps...
"Divide and rule, the politician cries; Unite and lead, is watchword of the wise." ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"The rich ruling class has used tribalism, a primitive caveman instinct, to their advantage since the beginning of time. They use it to divide and conquer us. They drive wedges between us peasants and make us fight each other, so we won’t rise up against our rulers and fight them. You can observe the same old trick everywhere in America today... That doesn’t just happen all by itself. There are always voices instigating these fights." ― Oliver Markus Malloy
"Divide and rule, weaken and conquer, love and enslave, these are three tenets of politics" ― Bangambiki Habyarimana
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)." ― Mark Twain
"Any fool can know. The point is to understand." ― Albert Einstein
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Regardless of the "system of gain" in question, which come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
Divide and rule/conquer creates "favorite sons" (as default "best friends") on the one side, and "scapegoats" on the other as "default rivals/enemies", just like 200 years ago during the age of colonialism...
Divide and rule creates dangerous precendents, and lays potentially self-destructive foundations, and Asia should learn from European mistakes, and never say "never."
4
-
The Monroe Doctrine was "divide and rule". After Europe became "exhausted" from the Napoleonic Wars, the opportunity was exploited in Washington DC for the implementation of global divide-and-rule. Anybody who understands this one-liner and sees the strategy behind it, understands history truly.
Previously, and analogous to Russia in Eurasia during the Napoleonic Wars, the USA had used this war mainly fought in Europe and which had exhausted all, to expand its own spheres of influence as expansion into North America (details of this territorial expansion as sphere of influence in the wake of "European exhaustion" is elaborated in like every other history book about the USA). The Napoleonic Wars were fought globally using various techniques of power (incl. but not limited to military clashes) but the main battlefield was "IN Europe". Here is where the war would be decided. In the period following the Napoleonic Wars, European leaders were simply too weak to protest or do anything about this "global example of divide-and-rule" (Monroe Doctrine), and too divided to unite against it as "single hegemony", and as declared by Washington DC without consultation, and which intended to squeeze Europeans "out" of the Americas in the most hegemonic fashion. Small dependencies of the "current best friends" would be honoured for the MOMENT whilst all were still "best friends", see "Trump" today, just doing their global politics, but that is another story within the divide-and-rule reality of the world...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@pouletbidule9831 "Legit" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics.
The real question that should be asked, and therefore the premise of any debate is: Was it wise at the time?
To which the simple answer is "no".
They ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@paulaclark2101 You wish to use the "who started it"-logic?
If you live in a frontier fort composed of armed civilians, intended to surround a concentration camp, then what did these settler colonists expect? Neighbors who bring them candy and flowers, from the dusty camp they've been encircled into?
Hamas was created by Israel with a divide and rule intention, to undermine the authority of the PLO. Search that and one will find hundreds of articles, incl. from Israeli sources, which will confirm this intentional Israeli strategy of deceit and division.
Gaza is the world's biggest concentration camp, ringed in by a cicle of Kibbutzim, inhabited by armed settler colonists. If you want to know what's going on, ask a Jwe. They will honestly tell you straight in your face, and dare you to resist: "We are a generation that settles the land, and without the steel helmet and the cannon's fire we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home.” -- Moshe Dayan
The intention is ethnic cleansing, and a pretext is needed to vacate the land under the terror of cannon fire, in order to create the next concentration camp, ringed in by the next ring of Kibbutzim, inhabited by the next selection of future "victims of terrorism"...
What you are witnissing today, is the own biblical "logic" of "reap as you sow". Israeli strategists, from within the safety of their walled encampments far away, intended to "sow division" between the peoples of Palestine, and now individual Israelis and foreigners are "reaping" the effects of these previous own political choices. Not a nice personal tale, agreed, so sorry about the personal misfortune of living in a frontier fort, and choosing to become a tool of encirclement.
But the own personal decisions to live a life as soldiers of fortune, using the own families as a human shields, whilst surrounding an open-air concentration camp as a tool of strategic encirclement, sometimes have unhappy consequences...
4
-
4
-
4
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@psyberking Yup, protection rackets. When states do it, its (quote) "legit."
Same types of people though.
When "Luigi" goes to a restaurant, and tells the owner, "Hey, I gotta gooda deal fora ya. You gimme da money, and my boys'll protect ya from da bad hood your in...", you've got a plot for a Hollywood movie.
But, if Uncle Sam goes to Saudi Arabia, and says "I've got a good deal for you. We'll protect you from your neighbours, and all you have to do is sell your oil in dollars. There's a nice cut for you too..."
Then, you have "good guys" just "saving the world."
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit. The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They morphed strong monarchies ("princes") into weak democracies ("mercenaries"), then used entire regions as tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up to Versailles. The USA could afford to wait.
Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I would have reminded French leaders of the role their own leaders played in escalating the July Crisis.
[From wiki]
"In 1913, it had been announced that Poincaré would visit St. Petersburg in July 1914 to meet Tsar Nicholas II. Accompanied by Premier René Viviani, Poincaré went to Russia for the second time (but for the first time as president) to reinforce the Franco-Russian Alliance. On 15 July, the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister, Count Leopold von Berchtold, informed foreign countries through a back-channel of Austria-Hungary's intention to present an ultimatum to Serbia.[24] When Poincaré arrived in St. Petersburg on 20 July, the Russians told him by 21 July of the Austrian ultimatum and German support for Austria.[24] Although Prime Minister Viviani was supposed to be in charge of French foreign policy, Poincaré promised the Tsar unconditional French military backing for Russia against Austria-Hungary and Germany.[25]"
Viola....a French "blank cheque"?
[Continued]
"In his discussions with Nicholas II, Poincaré talked openly of winning an eventual war, not avoiding one.[21]"
Me: So much for the "we just want peace"- version of events.
[Continued]
"Later, he attempted to hide his role in the outbreak of military conflict and denied having promised Russia anything.[21]"
Bearing false witness?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@nekroneschwartz2013 To address your previous comment of why GB and France did not declare war on the SU after the 17th of September 1939 (Soviet invasion).
Poland was established in 1919, as a geostrategic barrier between Germany and Russia/SU to protect the British Empire .
It was used the same way as Belgium in 1914 (geostrategic barrier between France and Germany), set up in 1815.
When the SU invaded, it served no further purpose in protecting the Empire, and was dropped like a hot potato...
For more information as to the background of this, I suggest Google "British policy of Balance of Power for the continent of Europe", and Mackinder's theory of the Heartland (Pivot of History). In a nutshell, the theory stated that if the entire Heartland (roughly Urals to Central Europe) would fall to a single hegemony, the British Empire would collapse.
The theory proved correct.
In 1945, the SU stormed into the Balkans and Central Europe, Churchill's desperate attempts to avoid it failed (Percentages Agreement and Operation Unthinkable), and the Empire collapsed within a decade...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Who has ever heard of the big bad scarecrow?
Dresden Bombed To Atoms (1945)
(Copy and paste into the YT search engine, then go 23 seconds into the newsreel)
For years after the end of WW2, newsreels like this British Pathe informed us about the events of WW2.
The docs were filled with exciting tidbits, and exhilarating 'facts'. For example, one of the 'facts' the historians told us about was how the Germans had 'devised a scarecrow weapon': a massive aerial explosion which was meant to look like an exploding plane. The German intention was to scare away 'our boys from doing the job'. Like a scarecrow in the fields, these explosions were intended to scare British air crews away from bombing their targets, the city centers.
These massive explosions were merely 'a clever German ruse', and a 'new German weapon'.
Or, so we were being told...
"The No. 30 tail pistol (detonator), which was widely used in all medium calibre bombs throughout the war, is a good example of the difficulty Bomber Command had in obtaining operational feedback on bombing attacks. Bomber Command only became aware that the No. 30 pistol had severe problems when its crews undertook daylight-bombing operations in the autumn of 1944. During this period, bomber crews were appalled to see bombs dropped from accompanying aircraft explode as they left the aircraft. Subsequent investigations found that the nut on the striker spindle was binding and forcing the spindle onto the detonator. In the dark, this fault had not been obvious and crews, if they survived, would have assumed that the explosion was German flak. Attempts to fix the problems did not entirely prevent these premature detonations and the designers had found no fix for the problem before the war ended. It is therefore reasonable to suspect that a large percentage of the medium sized bombs using the No. 30 Pistol failed and, worse, they may have been responsible for the destruction of the aircraft that carried them."
(Source BRITAIN 1939 – 1945: THE ECONOMIC COST OF STRATEGIC BOMBING)
So, here is how some of our esteemed historians work.
When the truth comes out, do they stand up and inform us about how they have misinformed us, and distorted the truth?
Do they admit that they have lied, if it was a clear-cut case of lying?
Nope.
Doesn't happen.
The reality is that misconceptions which were spread for years, are simply quietly dropped.
Of course, it is hoped that the docile sheep who believed what had been dished up to them for years, are simply too pre-occupied to notice.
Worked well, works well all the time when dealing with mere sheep...
Need any more evidence?
`Nazi War Plants Blasted By R.A.F. In Night Raids (1943)' see at 1.34 minutes when the commentator says '.. a bomb hit by flak in mid air...'
I call bs. It was a bomb exploding in mid-air, caused by it's own faulty fuse...or even worse: maybe even an exploding plane, downed by a known engineering error.
Critical question: If they "lie by omission" about something this minor, then what are they lying about today, hoping you'll forget in 10 or 20 years when the truth comes out?
4
-
4
-
4
-
@The Postman Thank you for the statistics.
What about causes?
Additional article information
Abstract
Background:
Suicide rate and suicidal tendencies among transgender persons are considerably high compared to general population. Hence, this review is an attempt to understand the issues around the suicide and suicidal behavior among transgender persons.
Methodology:
The literature search conducted using three sources, i.e., electronic databases (PubMed, ProQuest, Google Scholar, PsycInfo), manual search (library catalog), and gray literature (consultation with experts).
Results:
The suicide attempt rate among transgender persons ranges from 32% to 50% across the countries. Gender-based victimization, discrimination, bullying, violence, being rejected by the family, friends, and community; harassment by intimate partner, family members, police and public; discrimination and ill treatment at health-care system are the major risk factors that influence the suicidal behavior among transgender persons.
Are you sure you are not doing anything that might contribute to the high suicide rates?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@sugariedreams2707 In order to justify your stance, you are drawing a "false equivalency" (which you can google for more info). If you'd be willing to study the topic you're voicing your opinion about, you'd realise that Transgenders and Schizophrenics are entirely different things.
Transgender (or any LGBTQ for that matter) does not fall in the same category as people who believe they are animals, or people who "believe they are Jeff Bezos".
Yes, there are even people out there who believe they are Barbie Dolls, and spend hundreds of thousands on operations. Should we forbid or enforce unwanted therapy that too?
Should therapy be enforced for everything and anything everybody doesn't like?
Or, just the things you don't like?
As far as I'm concerned:
1) if people are no danger to society, or seriously infringe on the lives of others, let them be (as foreseen by the Declaration of Independence aka "pursuit of life liberty and happiness)
[note, I consciously write "infringe", not "cause discomfort" to others]
2) help people who want to be helped (voluntary basis), no force or excessive coercion applied
3) institutionalize those who are dangerous to others, paid for by the taxpayers who benefits from a safer environment/society
Unless you can come up with some really good arguments why 2) or 3) should apply to the LGBTQ community, you dont really have a case.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Not only Churchill, but an entire network of "old boys" stiff-upper-lipped Empire into ruin...
Because there's always a big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[britannica & balance-of-power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world.
Note: nobody in Europe ever applied for this "honor".
It was simply imposed on the continental powers, decided behind closed doors by a few London lords without negotiations or accords with those so "divided"...
London made Germany, the strongest continental power, "the enemy", as a default setting.
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to play "balancing games" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if the eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...you loose your empire to the new kids in town...
From the unmistakable "Nr.1" in 1900, down to "merely on par" with Washington DC after WW1, down to "third fiddle" during the Cold War. All in less than a single lifetime...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. The world was divided in "East" and "West".
And down went the British Empire too...
Sorry 'bout that.
Causality is a b*tch...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned against "divisions" within unity/peace/Eden/whatever, which create GAIN for OUTSIDERS...
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power...
------------------------------------------------
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite, or at least avoid total disunity.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Today, just like at all points on the timeline, America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the indivual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-----------------------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner, the intention is simply to avoid unity in Africa and the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Four corners of the globe. Same games.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@bolivar2153 More bs from the bs-department :-D
No, Germany did not "invent" the concept of "waging war on civilians".
In fact, if you really knew your history, you'll find thousands of examples, in most wars, and at all times, and by all sides.
Kagoshima, Sebastopol (Krim War), Savannah, the Opium Wars, and hundreds of other "targets" ravaged by naval bombardment and wars as a result of squabbling over spheres of influence.
That is what influenced public opinion at the time (1880s and 1890s), and why a nation of taxpayers would gladly use their newly created wealth, to support the construction of a navy.
The object was not becoming the victim of another nation's arrogance of power.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Canton_(May_1841)
Any sympathy for "poor Japanese" or "poor Chinese"?
No?
Or did they simply stand in the way of expanding "Empire"?
As it was, during WW1, the Imperial German Navy might not have broken the long distance blockade of the RN, but they did avoid the RN from steaming into the Baltic, "Copenhagenizing" one German city after the next...
https://www.google.com/search?client=tablet-android-asus-rev&biw=602&bih=964&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=copenhagen+navy+bombardement&oq=copenhagen+navy+bombardement&aqs=mobile-gws-lite..
Any sympathy for "poor Danes"?
How about "propaganda ministers" cheering their own "Copenhagenizing" of "enemies", including women and children?
Any criticism on your behalf there on the innocent citizens which your RN bombarded?
No?
Guess not...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
It was strategy at the core, using the appeal to emotion as justification.
THE CORE STRATEGY
For the British Empire starting around 1917: to use mass-immigration as a tool of division as they did all over their empire. Lines were drawn, and rulers imposed onto the people living here, who were never asked as a collective. Whether it was the White Highlands (Kenya) or Palestine, these white immigrants brandished their newly found power (as the favorites of an empire). In other cases (Fiji, for example) mass-immigration of other subjects were used to cause disruption within the original indigenous power structures. This power of the hegemony was transformed into pieces of paper (deeds) granting CHOSEN FAVORITES property in a promised land, and these new favorites/best friends in the form of mass-immigration would then, in return, protect the British Empire's interests. In the Levant, it was the very precious Suez Canal from the threat of potential attacks by land armies, from the north...because the British Empire did as it always did. Create useful tools in a "barrier state" (strategy), for its own perceived potential future gain. That of the automatic ally (strategy). If the Levant was attacked by a northern empire on the way to Egypt/Suez as per Heartland Theory (1904), via land routes where the mighty Royal Navy was useless, the "poor little friends" which had previously been strategically set up as homelands/states, would be defended.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
There are probably more parallels between Morroco trying desperately to hang on to her independence (1905), and Korea trying to do the same at the same time (1904), on the other side of the world. Neither of these minor independent powers had sufficient political clout, strong enough industry or military, or any strong big brothers (powers) which stepped forward, in order to deter stronger imperialist powers using the territories as "chessboards" for the own games. Therefore, both Morocco and Korea subsequently lost their independence, also because it simply wasn't "useful" in the trade off mentality of the imperialist powers, to keep these minor nations independent, if they had a higher trade off potential (game theory).
Furthermore there are specific key differences between the concepts of geopolitics and grand strategy
1) geopolitics, mainly relevant in times of peace
2) grand strategy, incl. the "war games" of the various military powers
In the unfortunate realistic analysis of the late-19th century, 1) would always be subservient to 2), because it was a very militaristic world, based on the principle that might is right, and all else subservient to greed being "good" (sic.).
In a further analysis, comparing the 19th century in Europe to Korea creates false "parallels" in history.
Firstly, there was the quasi religious "racial pecking order" at the time of the Age of Imperialism. Since these ideologies would not necessarily be openly voiced (diplomacy) during the discussions. The scala naturae (Latin: “scale of nature”), or Great Chain of Being was the norm at the time for overwhelming number of western imperialist powers and their plenipotentiaries, and Asians simply "counted less" than Europeans. Searching for this "racial pecking order" in the archives also makes little sense: the diplomats would have simply been too "nice" to state these priorities openly. Koreans and other Asians were simply not deemed as an equal ranking, and their interests from an own perspective would therefore have unfortunately taken the "back seat" in any considerations. That was even the case much later, at Versailles in 1919, when all these "inferior races" (sic./misguided "logic" of the times) and their hopes and desires remained outside of the main discussion points of the conference, which solely dealt with the top down measured deemed worthy by the imperialist powers, to which realistically the USA must also be included.
Secondly, according to grand strategy, how "useful" was both Belgian and Swiss neutrality to the other main European powers?
After 1815, Belgian neutrality not only addressed the major security considerations of the "winning side", but also of France as the "loser" of the Napoleonic Wars. For Great Britain, it "neutralized" the "pistol pointing at the heart of England" (Antwerp), in that this vital major estuary and its major ports could no longer serve as a staging area for attacks on the hearland of the British Empire. For Prussia/Berlin, it made France a lot smaller and less powerful, and "neutralized" the shortest route any invading army could reach the industrial heartland of Prussia, the rapidly gaining "Ruhr industrial zone". Even for France, the "loser" of the war, any Central European coalition could not easily reach Paris and the industrial north of France. An invading army from the east would have to pass through the rough more hilly regions as later in 1870/71, a more difficult approach.
Swiss neutrality was not a major security dilemma for any of the neighbors, since this mountainous region was obviously totally impassable to any major army, especially if it also meant gaining a capable enemy as a result of such an invasion. Swiss neutrality being so durable and longlasting was therefore more a factor of "geography" and the own capable defense forces. There were no direct axis between any of the surrounding major powers in the event of a war, meaning that "going through Switzerland" was neither a military shortcut, nor a healthy prospect for the own wellbeing, in view of strong defenses and a strong mutual sense of unity in Switzerland.
Korea, late 19th century:
A few small observations.
London's self-interest in suggesting a Korean neutrality must be analyzed when zooming out into the global picture: it would have been the cheapest way to keep London's imperialist rivals out of Korea, whilst the British Empire was already fully engaged elsewhere, not only the Great Game against Russia, the Mediterranean Sea region, in Africa and the Pacific Region (French, German and US demands for island dependencies). From a London point of view, several western rivals were heading for China/Asia: mainly the USA, Russia, and France. Plus growing in might, also Japan, which all these western powers were building up in order to stand up to Russia. To a lesser extent, the other colonial powers. British interests in a "Korean neutrality" was therefore from an own perspective, not the considerations of the local Korean leaders, same as the creation of the artificial entity "Belgium" in Europe, was purely from the own security perspective. Again, this realistic approach would most likely be against what "archival entries" suggest, because what was openly stated was often not the real reasons or motivations.
Another factor making it unlikely foreign powers would have given the vital guarantee for a Korean neutrality, with own military might: Unlike Belgium for example, Korea already existed, and therefore could not serve the convenient purpose of "removing taxpayers" (geopolitical consideration) from a rival system. The creation of Belgium removed taxpayers, men of conscription age, and vital strategic locations as staging areas for military forces, which was very favorable for mainly GB and Prussia.
For Great Britain and her "friendly local system" Japan, Korean neutrality removed the possibility Russia had for gaining the much sought after "warm water port" for her navies, but in terms of land armies a neutralisation of Korea would have removed the potential Japan had to use it as a staging area to move against Russia, which is what then happened.
All in all though, there seemed little incentive for any European imperialists power to guarantee a Korean neutrality with the own power (military might), especially after the USA and Japan entered into "trade off" (Philippenes traded off against Korea). The latter "trade off" would then have possibly been the "coup de grace" of Korean neutrality.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
This is the theory.
According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules.
According to the concept of "meaning of words" all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life (50% for us, the minority), on ALL tiers, often by force, coercian, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world).
That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power).
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
4
-
Willy Brandt advocated closer ties to the USSR, especially in terms of energy diversification, which the USA has always tried to avoid. Now, the warmongers in Washington DC have achieved that, and Germans are forced to pay through their nose for energy, and which is going to lead to follow on effects: industries leaving, due to high costs, and economic collapse, social disorder as a result of increasing poverty, when the jobs start disappearing...
Oh and all those migrants fueling the hate? they come from the war zones the USA/GB created after 2001 in the ME. A fine outcome for the USA, which is the "divide and rule" technique...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Hasan is correct.
His core message is founded on sufficient evidence, so what's the issue?
As Robert Kennedy Jr. notes about the history of the ME:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster
So who was it that went to their world, removed their secular moderate leaders, and replaced them with religiously indoctrinated nitwits?
Correct answer: Our religiously indoctrinated nitwits who wanted to turn people into tools of a policy of "divide and rule"....
The USA absolutely loooooves Jihadists, as long as they don't act against the USA.
Or, that Biblical logic: "the people shall reap what your leaders have sown"...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Unfortunately, in history, one must often "start" at the consequences of own actions, in order to point out mistakes which happened along the way.
In the big picture of things, spotting mistakes as a contemporary witness is far more difficult.
True today. True at any point in history.
Furthermore, in order to "avoid history repeating itself", one must first admit that mistakes were made.
Also own mistakes.
Because, according to biblical logic: only by "removing the splinters from own eyes", can we avoid "sowing seeds", which we all "reap" at some point.
So here is how European reign and domination of the world ended in 1945, and a few subsequent years (short version, longer version below):
At the end of WW2, the USA (American Century) refused to honor an important treaty Western Allied leaders had made in Quebec.
A treaty/agreement almost nobody had ever heard about.
With that, Washington DC intended to become the sole nuclear power, and not share (as promised per treaty) nukes with London/GB/Empire.
By doing so, the new alpha stated that it did not want an equal power at eye level. They wanted a "junior partner".
And with that, they became the new alpha.
Rule Britania, repealed and replaced by the American Century.
Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana.
Rule the Waves? Let's put it this way. No more "Two Power Standard". Who had "the bigger one"? :-)
Washington DC (The American century) was in a position to "tear up a scrap of paper" and not care what anybody in "old Europe" thought about it.
Washington Internationalism/The American Century, the other "new power" rising across the Atlantic, whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”
It's interesting to google that quote. Of course it refers to a timeless political strategy, which is true at all times, and explains a lot about the headlines we see in the papers today.
Anyway...
Re. the concept of "being able to spot an anomaly" as history unfolded forward. Of course, it does not "happen backwards", but there is a timeline.
Machiavelli's "balance of power".
Of course Machiavelli didn't invent the concept of "balance of power", but was one of the first to put it down in words in western literature.
Would a true Machiavelli have ignored the noticeable change/shift in the "balance" of the powers at around the turn of the Century? (1900)
Note that the reality of the time was that while GB/Empire and the rising USA were roughly equal in "power" at the time (around 1900), only one of these 2 "powers" had the potential to hang on to her power as the world noticeably changed around the contemporary witnesses at the time, and at least for wise leaders, also in the foreseeable future (Washington DC as the firmly established soft power "master/hegemon" in the Americas, vs. London the "still master" of an outdated 1,000+ year old colonial model).
Would a true Machiavelli have snuggled up to a power without being able to "leverage/hedge" any deal (treaty/accord/agreement/etc.) it made?
Would a true Machiavelli have relied on "appeals to emotion" (like "everybody speaking English") to ensure a dominant position?
Last time I checked, "snuggling up" without also being in a position to "leverage" and/or "hedge" a deal, wasn't in the book (The Prince).
Re. the concept of "how history unfolded aroun the turn of the century, around 1900": reality (aka "the truth") created an anomaly in the algorithm on the timeline of history.
Stalin spotted it, and he intended to imitate it.
I'm sure he identified the "weak links" of Western European domination set up by Versailles by the "Big Three", and other post-WW1 treaties, without Moscow being consulted.
The early Communism in One Country advocates in Moscow, soon to become World Communism: "Observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership."
I'm sure he read a lot...
4
-
It all started off soooo gweat...
That "Hollywood movie Band of Brothers"-stuff.
Everyone speaking English.
The good guys...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE 2:
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets...
4
-
4
-
4
-
Was your grandfather or or father killed by Wittmann in his Tiger tank, on that day in Normandie in 1944?
Was he killed or wounded in the Hochwald Gap, or anywhere else in Northern Europe?
Was he shot down by a Messerschmidt, or by one of the famous 88-mm guns?
If not, how about cut to ribbons by an MG-42 machine gun?
Was he shot or badly wounded by the standard German infantry rifle at the time, the Kar-98k?
At the time of the Dresden attack, the Mauser Works in Oberndorf in in the south of Germany, barely an hours flying time from the front lines at the time, was still fully functional. It was one of the major German small arms manufactures, including the the feared MG-42, and the old-fashioned but reliable Kar-98k.
Instead of frying 25,000 or 30,000 women and kids in Dresden in February 1945, maybe the RAF should have targeted the Mauser Works.
At this point in the war, the complete destruction or serious damage to the factory would have meant thousands of machine guns and rifles would have been either directly destroyed, or indirectly lost to production. Thousands of German soldiers, still viciously defending Germany, would have been left without adequate means to do so.
At this late stage of the war, with the front lines only a few hundred miles away, there would have hardly been an incentive for the Germans to try and repair the plant, especially not if the factory had been hit successively in a fully coordinated USAAF (daylight) and RAF (nighttime) attack.
Mauser was one of the world's most famous arms manufactures of the world, yet strangley anough, it was simply forgotten.
A well, who cares, right?
As long as you can quote from the Bible, with 'an eye for an eye', or "reap the whirlwind...'
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics.
The real question that should be asked, and therefore the premise of any debate is: Was it wise at the time?
To which the simple answer is "no".
They ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
4
-
4
-
4
-
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can deny that it exists, because just like gravity, it cannot be seen.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like gravity, one can ignore that it exists, yet benefit from it at the same time.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like gravity exposes its own existence, by simple observation, anyone can observe the existence of divide and rule...
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like giant vacuum cleaners, it creates multiple systems on multiple levels, each with its own benefactors, and sucks of the hard labor from a base, and funnels it to the top.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that 99% of the participants who are involved, are blissfully unaware how they are actors in a game and can claim innocence while defending the systems at the same time.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can mask it behind innocuous policies, like meritocracy, and still claim to be doing the best politics possible.
The same way one can plausibly explain how one is a state of isolationism, yet be peculiarly in a state of constant interventionalism and war at the same time: invisible magic...***
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can plausibly deny its existance, yet constantly profit from it.
The cool thing about divide and rule, is that at the very top, the systems of empire, it creates a giant vacuum cleaner that funnels power to the top. "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. Within this framework the role of France, Germany and England of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations. . ."
The fruits of hard consistent invisible labor.
Divide and rule.
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world." Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire. - Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
The fruits of hard consistent unseen effects.
Divide and rule.
***With regards to Interventionalism: the USA was supposed to be Isolationist: John Quincy Adams delivered a speech in 1821 stating the USA's founding foreign policy of non-intervention and the US government's premise not to get entangled in or meddle in the affairs of another state. Adams issued the dire warning: Should America ever abandon her founding principle of non-interventionism, she would become "the dictatress of the world."
Just like Eisenhower issued a dire warning about Military Industrial Complexes, everybody knows how effective such warnings are.
The two-tier approach: get some people to say one thing, while others do the opposite...
Divide and rule.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Hamas is an effect, not a cause.
The concept of an "occupation" seems to be hard to grasp.
The landgrabs after the 6-Day War were illegal according to international law. Waging a "preventive war" or a "war of choice" was not illegal, but all the subsequent landgrabs were.
According to international law, these territories are therefore still "occupied".
" ...We had three wars which we fought without an alternative. The first, the war of independence, which began on Nov. 30, 1947 and lasted until January 1949 ...The second war of no alternative was the Yom Kippur War and the war of attrition that preceded it ... Our other wars were not without an alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice ... In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation." -- Menachem Begin, Aug. 8, 1982, Israeli National Defense College
Begin stated clearly that Israel had fought three wars before which it had a "choice," meaning Israel started the wars. In legal terms, this is known as "preventive war," which is not illegal. However, taking land against international law after such a war, is illegal. Note that fluffy language like "in the noblest sense of the word," highlighted above, is not a legal term but gangsta talk.
Israel is still the occupying power.
That is what the law states. One can whine about laws, but that doesn't change a law. Everything one can come up with in defense of Israel, will automatically mean apologia for the occupying force. Everything one states, either ignores or apologizes for the stronger side in a conflict, which is enforcing an illegal occupation.
Every conversation which does not stress the fact that one side is the occupier, the other side the resistance, is biased towards imperialism.
Every news report must start with explaining who the occupation power is, so as not to confuse the timeline.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Buy local.
Why?
"You will own nothing and be happy," they said.
First, they came for the mom and pop stores, and small backyard workshops, but we had Amazon & cie., and did not care.
Then, they came for the farmers, but we did not care for we had Walmart shelves packed to the brim...
Finally, the corporations came for your house, and there was nobody left to speak for you.
How convenient if family-led businesses, workshops and farms all over go bankrupt. The corporations can swarm in, get the land cheaply, and feast on the dividends of renting the property back to the original owners.
In the end, you will own nothing, but you won't be happy.
Support small companies and farmers, to protect YOURself 🙏👍
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Advice for the inhabitants of Greenland.
When your new "friends" come, please, please bow down and smile along, just like Hawaiians did 150 years ago (post-1850s). Then, you'll the be "good people," on the crucial "right side of history." Don't be naughty like the islanders of Puerto Rico a century ago and create resistance movements. Remember, when the money elites come from major US and other cities, to buy up and OWN everything around you, try not to be obstinate. Just give up all your prime ancestral lands to these outsiders and multi-national corporations, and don't resist.
Dear Greenlanders, for inside these two "histories" (Hawaii, Puerto Rico) you can see your future which will rhyme, when your "friends" arrive on your shores with their shareholder "meets & greets" and the political "grips & grabs" for the cameras, for the adoring crowds back home. In 10, 20, or 30 years' time, forget about an affordable health insurance, 'cos think about the bright side: you'll have McDonalds on every corner, and Red Dye 40 poisoning your kids. Laws? Hahahaaa... Who needs laws, if you got "guns and freedom baby".
When they come to your shores, because "it's all legal now, cos we made the rules", they are not going to "see" what you lost, but they will concentrate on what they themselves can GAIN, and history will rhyme.
Dear Greenlanders. So you think you have a European strong big brother protecting you? Think again, because so did Hawaiians (British Empire), before all the "friends" came with their super dealmakers (see The Great Rapprochement/1895, as "friends" simply made deals at faraway green tables, and YOU were the one sold out).
Oh, and dear Greenlanders, don't go on the wrong track and think "capitalism," promises made, and signed agreements are actually important. See the histories of the First Nations of North America and their 350 signed accords... or the artificially created "Panama" as exemplary. A hundred years ago, the minor powers in Colombia dared thinking they could determine the price tag themselves, at a time they were still called "Colombians". Now, they are not "Colombians" anymore and today there are countless American imperialist voices all over the internet already loudly complaining how they want "their" canal "back", and there are more than sufficient voices from the mommy's basements actually thinking "he" built it, or "he" paid for it...
And when they set out imperialist/militarist Smedley-Butler-style just remember that systemically (grand strategy/geopolitics) nobody cares.
You are the game to these people.
They don't care about you.
Your future on their marching route, depends on how you resist.
What they care about, is what is UNDER your feet, as resources or the strategic location on the map.
It's about MONEY and POWER and LAND. This story will rhyme eternally whilst the MSM sings the tune of "justice" and "freedom".
Today, many Americans stuck in their daily grind ask themselves why all these US dollars are being globally spread so copiously all over the world as they personally struggle to cope, whilst their government/elites are funding dictators and democracies alike, funding peace and war at the same time, funding corruption with one hand while fighting it with the other, paying for destruction over there and reconstruction somewhere else. All they have to do is read their history. It was never different at any point in history. Because the elites playing global divide-and-rule comes with a "price tag": YOU.
Victorian Era Brits should know. They also wallowed in poverty, as their Empire "ruled the world" from a position of power, with division, and their rulers did the same.
Dear Greenlanders.
The future of Greenland is the past of Hawaii.
Imperialism never ended.
Machiavelli: "And it is seen by experience that only princes and armed republics make very great progress, whereas mercenary forces do nothing but harm …"
Read the books on strategy and the allegories about power, and read them as INTENDED, not as somebody interprets them FOR you...
Machiavelli stated that it is the "princes" (connected to the lands, often hereditary gatekeepers) who actually cared about a region, because these regions were the centers of their own "insider" wealth/power. But when the "mercenaries" (foreigners, vested interests) arrive, as foreigners who are in it only for the profit/gain, that is when entire regions are dragged down in circles of international corruption. When the "mercenaries" of international hedge funds, mining companies, foreign armies, foreign-approved politicians, and other examples of ivory towers ("revolving doors" models of power) step in and build up, you will not rid yourself of these (mostly) outsiders easily again.
They covet thy land and its resources, and will get it. A tale as old as the Bible. Esau and Jacob is of course a cautionary tale to beware of brothers who come to you with a GIFT which has morphed over time and now means "winning means everything". Note that in this biblical "tale" about eternal deceit and "cheating own brothers out of their inheritance", that the deceiver is the hero of the story. Those who end up with the RICHES under your feet, are the heroes. The deceiver's name and slimy ways continue. Esau the inheritor and his father's favourite, as a name has sorta died out. Just remember, wherever you live, that you just a "dog" in a "manger" (Churchill), and that the RESOURCES intended to be passed onto you as natural inheritance, belong to the OUTSIDERS, in the OUTSIDERS heads, and according to the strategies of these OUTSIDERS. The "smooth talking good guy", the spiffy clean deceiver, scamming his own brother, whilst arguing like a woman creating division within unity and creating the BLACK LEGEND of his brother (the "bad guy"), is the "hero" of history. Very telling indeed.
Dear Greenlanders. You might not like your current status quo as European/Danish territory. The "game" for CONTROL already started a dozen years ago as "history" rhyming. Your future is the past of Hawaii, whose history of foreign domination and CONTROL (divide-and-rule) started as foreign meddling around the 1850s, in slow methodical steps, and with gathering momentum following the 1890's. Once the locusts of capitalism have grazed everything off so these stakeholders benefit themselves and global shareholders far away, then you might just think back about the proverb by the Cree nation (attr.): “Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money.”
4
-
4
-
OrdinaryNGamer The terrorists were literally the end product of own US meddling which started after WW2 and have not stopped since then.
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Training "terrorists"?
How'd that work out?
4
-
Start pulling the rug from underneath their feet...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
How our leaders avoid "avoiding war", and then fabricate a racket...in three easy steps.
Step 1:
Engineer a situation, or take on a standpoint one would never accept as "acceptable", if placed in the same situation oneself, and refuse to budge. Ignore all warnings.
Step 2:
Watch on as the situation deteriorates.
Find a few "good fwiends", who "see things the same way", and refuse to budge.
Send around a few good guys, who will try their best...
Ignore all further warnings.
As "crisis" turns to gloom, do as little as you can possibly get away with.
Especially, don't sign anything worded in such a way that it would actually avoid war (see below).
Step 3:
When the guns start firing: Here comes the most important step. Do as the Bible says (lol) and point the finger everywhere else, and wash own hands in innocence (using the easy "Pontius Pilate"-way out).
From wiki/US General Smedley-Butler: "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
Butler confesses that during his decades of service in the United States Marine Corps: I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."
Rinse, repeat in a few years...
Forget.
I guess he was just another "conspiwacy theorist".
Everybody not rattling down the narrative, is always a "conspiwacy theorist".
I assume many have read Smedley Butler since the 1930s.
Not to correct wrongs, but to profit from wrongs themselves.
A very few, who determine the existence not only of our wellbeing, but today also the existence of our entire planet.
Today there are too few warning voices who counter the "My country, wrong or right"-arrogance of power rhetoric with the only correct standpoint. "If right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." Senator Carl Schurz, February 29, 1872.
“The dumbing down of America is evident in the slow decay of substantive content, a kind of celebration of ignorance.”
— Carl Sagan
He had a foreboding of America of the future. While he was alive, he witnessed how manufacturing jobs were being shifted abroad, and everything became focussed on making as much profit for as few super-rich as possible, and as much for a few as possibly achievable without an outright revolution, while the endless talking and talking and talking carried on and on and on...
Another "warning voice", ignored and forgotten.
In more detail:
“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance.”
His "foreboding" of course not only concerned the USA, but this desease of ignorance, indifference, and complacency is rapidly spreading all over the western world.
There is no need for anybody in Europe or anywhere else in the West to "pat the own back" and "point at America" while laughing.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
So British leaders bombed the British Empire into ruin.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
Sorreeee. That's what happens when you make the wrong "fwiends".
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Nice exchange.
The current generation of kids can chant "Bomber Harris do it again" for all eternity.
It only cost the Brits their Empire...
Seems like a fair deal.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
If you live in a frontier fort composed of armed civilians, intended to surround a concentration camp, then what did these settler colonists expect? Neighbors who bring them candy and flowers, from the dusty camp they've been encircled into?
Hamas was created by Israel with a divide and rule intention, to undermine the authority of the PLO. Search that and one will find hundreds of articles, incl. from Israeli sources, which will confirm this intentional Israeli strategy of deceit and division.
Gaza is the world's biggest concentration camp, ringed in by a cicle of Kibbutzim, inhabited by armed settler colonists. If you want to know what's going on, ask a Jwe. They will honestly tell you straight in your face, and dare you to resist: "We are a generation that settles the land, and without the steel helmet and the cannon's fire we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home.” -- Moshe Dayan
The intention is ethnic cleansing, and a pretext is needed to vacate the land under the terror of cannon fire, in order to create the next concentration camp, ringed in by the next ring of Kibbutzim, inhabited by the next selection of future "victims of terrorism"...
What you are witnissing today, is the own biblical "logic" of "reap as you sow". Israeli strategists, from within the safety of their walled encampments far away, intended to "sow division" between the peoples of Palestine, and now individual Israelis and foreigners are "reaping" the effects of these previous own political choices. Not a nice personal tale, agreed, so sorry about the personal misfortune of living in a frontier fort, and choosing to become a tool of encirclement.
But the own personal decisions to live a life as soldiers of fortune, using the own families as a human shields, whilst surrounding an open-air concentration camp as a tool of strategic encirclement, sometimes have unhappy consequences...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Hats off gentlemen, for being able to focus on the truly indicative.
At some point I'm sure Dr. Crosston wanted to bring up the "dissolution of Russia", but sadly forgot to address it later on.
It'll be great if you could have it on again Pascal, to get his opinion about this unfolding "reality" for Washington DC strategists.
This discussion is unlike our MSM, totally under the spell of "narratives" they thought they had come up with themselves, completely independently,
"The concept of the "totally beside the point"-debates, filling up primetime, occupying all our attentions...
The "point the finger there", so people don't look here as "oldest trick in the book".
The power of suggestion, or the "Jedi mind trick".
Around the year 2000, Washington DC strategists had a little problem. How to get millions of Russians**(footnote) to surround and encroach on the US rival China, even though these citizens had not the slightests intentions to do so. In case Moscow refused to do so, either by joining NATO or otherwise, then the inhabitants of China's bordering regions somehow had to be "Jedi mind tricked" into doing so indirectly...
The answer of course lies in the "dissolution of Russia", and the "Jedi mind trick" is to get millions of citzens in Western countries to think they came up with this result all on their own: that such a dissolution of Russia is the best or only option. And they will think so without their minds being influenced in the slightest. Coincidently, following around June/July last year, just such reports about "how minorities from Russia's east are overwhelmingly drafted", are a part of our Western news outlets' narratives.
The sublime messaging is of course that millions reach the conclusion that it would be better for all these poor people in case they had their own countries...
And millions of individuals will think they will have reached this conclusion all by themselves, without being influenced...
It is in fact the repeat of a similar "Jedi mind trick" around a 125 years ago, played on millions of other citizens, around the year 1900. The dilemma London strategists had with regards to the population of England: How to psychologically influence millions of citizens to "protect France", and hundreds of thousands of young men to volunteer to fight for France, even though they had not the slightests intentions to do so. This dilemma for the strategists was how to get people to do something via suggestion, and to think they had even come up with the idea all by themselves. The "Jedi mind trick" was of course to substitute "unpopular France" with "weak people" (***footnote).
Even though today it is known for a fact, and proven by archival entries, the fact THAT the London elites/strategists intended to "avoid the collapse of France" as THEIR priority, they knew that most young Britons had no affinity for France, and wouldn't volunteer for a muddy trench and a potentially painful death to protect the people who had been their historical "rival/enemy" for hundreds of years.
The power of such "Jedi mind tricks" can even be proven, both by the reader of this comment, who simply has to analyse the own thought patterns, and conclude that even today, the overwhelming majority of individuals will instinctively respond exactly like the lordships intended even across the space of time of more than a hundred years.
Reality: As the balance of power shifted from France to Germany after 1871, the Empire had a new continental "default rival/enemy".
That is the power strong minds exact over weaker minds.
Even the "coolest cat" (personality type), cannot resist the urge of the "laser pointer", as proven by all those YT cat videos, as an analogy...
**"Russians" or the citizens of The Russian Federation, are of course not all ethnic Russians. The "Jedi mind trick" is to get them to detach from Russia, either with a "Versailles"-type ruling, as Western leaders dictating terms to Moscow/new Muscovite State, and "dissolution" with the sharpie markers on maps, or as a result of their own feelings, as "laser pointer guided"-emotions. Furhtermore, as ancillary, to get most Americans and Europeans to think Russia wants to rule the world, or "have an empire again", or whatever...
***Note that the alternative for Berlin strategist in July 1914, as a result of geography, as the "long war scenario" as going over the own border with France via hilly mountainous regions, with narrow valleys and single track railways, dotted with powerfull forts and defensive positions, was almost guaranteed not to happen in any "domino stones" reality of unfolding events, in case there was the threat of a "2-front war" with both Russia in the East ("Russian steamroller to Berlin") and France in the West (Plan XVII) at the same time.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"... how America "manages" Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 percent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about 60 percent of the world's GNP and about threefourths of the world's known energy resources. Eurasia is also the location of most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. After the United States, the next six largest economies and the next six biggest spenders on military weaponry are located in Eurasia. All but one of the world's overt nuclear powers and all but one of the covert ones are located in Eurasia. The world's two most populous aspirants to regional hegemony and global influence are Eurasian. All of the potential political and/or economic challengers to American primacy are Eurasian. Cumulatively, Eurasia's power vastly overshadows America's. Fortunately for America, Eurasia is too big to be politically one..." THE GRAND CHESSBOARD American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski
Critical question***.
If it is the historical realisation ever since before Mackinder (Pivot of history) that a united Eurasia at the "core" of the planet, is the danger to the periphery, then what is the strategy to avoid that?
Notice the word: "manages".
In the past, Europe has already been "managed", and Washington DC continues doing so.
What Brzezinski fails to elaborate on in his book, is that his "periphery" of states stretching from South East Asia, via the Indian subcontinent, through Africa (and its strongest economy, South Africa) and from there to South America is the periphery of the world, just like Great Britain and the U.S.A. was once the "periphery" of Europe at the end of the 19th century, while continental Europe was the "old core"...
***"Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment.[1] The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking,[2] and accordingly, a critical thinker is one who practices the skills of critical thinking or has been schooled in its disciplines.[3] Richard W. Paul has suggested that the mind of a critical thinker engages both the intellectual abilities and personal traits necessary for critical thinking.[4] Critical thinking presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism[5][6] and sociocentrism." (Wiki)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Unfortunately, in history, one must often "start" at the consequences of own actions, in order to point out mistakes which happened along the way.
In the big picture of things, spotting mistakes as a contemporary witness is far more difficult.
True today. True at any point in history.
Furthermore, in order to "avoid history repeating itself", one must first admit that mistakes were made.
Also own mistakes.
Because, according to biblical logic: only by "removing the splinters from own eyes", can we avoid "sowing seeds", which we all "reap" at some point.
So here is how European reign and domination of the world ended in 1945, and a few subsequent years (short version, longer version below):
At the end of WW2, the USA (American Century) refused to honor an important treaty Western Allied leaders had made in Quebec.
A treaty/agreement almost nobody had ever heard about.
With that, Washington DC intended to become the sole nuclear power, and not share (as promised per treaty) nukes with London/GB/Empire.
By doing so, the new alpha stated that it did not want an equal power at eye level. They wanted a "junior partner".
And with that, they became the new alpha.
Rule Britania, repealed and replaced by the American Century.
Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana.
Rule the Waves? Let's put it this way. No more "Two Power Standard". Who had "the bigger one"? :-)
Washington DC (The American century) was in a position to "tear up a scrap of paper" and not care what anybody in "old Europe" thought about it.
Washington Internationalism/The American Century, the other "new power" rising across the Atlantic, whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”
It's interesting to google that quote. Of course it refers to a timeless political strategy, which is true at all times, and explains a lot about the headlines we see in the papers today.
Anyway...
Re. the concept of "being able to spot an anomaly" as history unfolded forward. Of course, it does not "happen backwards", but there is a timeline.
Machiavelli's "balance of power".
Of course Machiavelli didn't invent the concept of "balance of power", but was one of the first to put it down in words in western literature.
Would a true Machiavelli have ignored the noticeable change/shift in the "balance" of the powers at around the turn of the Century? (1900)
Note that the reality of the time was that while GB/Empire and the rising USA were roughly equal in "power" at the time (around 1900), only one of these 2 "powers" had the potential to hang on to her power as the world noticeably changed around the contemporary witnesses at the time, and at least for wise leaders, also in the foreseeable future (Washington DC as the firmly established soft power "master/hegemon" in the Americas, vs. London the "still master" of an outdated 1,000+ year old colonial model).
Would a true Machiavelli have snuggled up to a power without being able to "leverage/hedge" any deal (treaty/accord/agreement/etc.) it made?
Would a true Machiavelli have relied on "appeals to emotion" (like "everybody speaking English") to ensure a dominant position?
Last time I checked, "snuggling up" without also being in a position to "leverage" and/or "hedge" a deal, wasn't in the book (The Prince).
Re. the concept of "how history unfolded aroun the turn of the century, around 1900": reality (aka "the truth") created an anomaly in the algorithm on the timeline of history.
Stalin spotted it, and he intended to imitate it.
I'm sure he identified the "weak links" of Western European domination set up by Versailles by the "Big Three", and other post-WW1 treaties, without Moscow being consulted.
The early Communism in One Country advocates in Moscow, soon to become World Communism: "Observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership."
I'm sure he read a lot...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
It's neither. It is a divider.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million gaining at the expense of billions, as the USA/collective West has done these past 500 years.
I'm sure Chinese and Russian leaders will imnediately agree to this, and our US/collective West will do as they've always done: pretend to wish to "sign up for it" overtly and ostentatiously (doves), but use deception to torpedo such attempts of global equillibrium covertly (hawks).
Good cops (neolibs) and bad cops (neocon).
This is divide-and-rule.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Re. the question why all the observed reality is allowed to happen, is because it is based on human nature, and the nature of our prefered systems of capitalism/democracy.
All states, also the western style "liberal democracies" and "good states" have set up deep-impacting non-elected agencies, which are outside of the control of any voters, and therefore the collective wisdom and moral values of humanity. The resulting system is that of pyramidically shaped systems of gain, contained within other pyramidical systems of gain, in which ultimate gain and power is funneled to the very top. These pyramidically shaped (structured) systems of gain called "capitalism" and "politics" have the stated goal of pushing and removing opposition, largely and correctly known as being a "dirty game" (euphemism) and are designed by nature to attract fellow human beings with psychopathic tendencies (***see below footnotes).
A large portion of our fellow human beings perceive these as valid traits to achieve the own political and personal priorities. "Might is right", and "end justifies the means" are still axioms of so-called superiority. There is also no reason to believe that any other system which promises power, will not attract similar numbers of bullies and psychopaths.
Reality: "Liberal democracies" and "capitalist gain models" attract psychos like moths to the flame, and most human beings wouldn't be able to spot a "psycho" even if their lives depended on it.
Most human beings living in symbiosis of systems either don't have the skill to recognize bad actors, nor the inclination to remove them since it is tangentially beneficial to own favored systems, or have become directly entrapped by the "gain models" (pyramids) lead by such bad actors. An example of this would be the case of Oliver North, whose psychopathic dealings were rewarded by "the system" with a highly paid management position (NRA). It doesn't seem to bother sufficient decent people enough to make such "management styles" impossible (effect a "stopper" against such models de jure or de facto). Indeed, based on observation, and looking back in history it can therefore be concluded that such behaviour is only given a "slap on the wrist", and therefore continues in "good empires". Studies have shown that models based on "intent of gain", like capitalism, have rates of people with psychopathic tendencies as high as 20%. Compare that reality to the average for a normal society, or usual non-gain models of cooperation, which is around a "1% psycho saturation rate". There is no reason to believe other models of "intent of gain" (like politics) do not have similar high rates of psychos.
All empires as collectives of individuals have by nature, psychopathic and bullying tendencies. Note that the "Hollywood image" of the "psycho" and "the bully" is faaaaar removed from reality. The unfortunate reality is that most psychopaths/bullies remain undetected, and undetectable, because they manipulate entire groups of "non-psychos/non-bullies" into following them as beneficiaries, who then start entire campaigns of coverups and deception themselves.
These psychopathic traits are generally considered to be common traits, and are defined: stated where these individual traits overlap with governments:
- have split personalities (the political reality of "doves" and "hawks" coexisting in one "brain")
- they are narcissistic (constantly pointing the finger "outwards" in attempts at deflecting from own actions and goals)
- they have "brains" (governments) which control, or misconstruct data
- scheme for own gain (policies, doctrines, and the likes of that)
- use manipulative strategies as tools in order to mislead billions of people
These bad actors and deceivers are allowed "to play", to lie and deceive, telling their inhabitants things like "all we want is peace", whereas in reality there are elements pushing for eternal war which benefits the systems they represent.
Further traits, which can be scaled up or down to all levels of human cooperation, but not limited to (from wiki): "Meanness. Lacking empathy and close attachments (edit: the urge to avoid unity with others), disdain of close attachments (edit: steer away from mutually beneficial treaties), use of cruelty to gain empowerment (edit: torture, concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, etc. and then making excuses for the perpetrators), exploitative tendencies (edit: i.e. ethnic cleansing, etc.), defiance of authority (like disdain for higher bodies of common humanity, like UN rulings), and destructive excitement seeking (edit: saying things like "dodging bullets is exciting", whilst on expeditions intending to steal self-governance from others)." (end of quote)
Therefore, logically, all one needs to do is find out what these manipulators (as a collective hive mind operating in pyramically shaped systems of gain) are trying to manipulate the majorities into cheering for.
If you wish to truly understand the "how" and "why", then go to the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under this video. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
No, these essays are not a "conspiracy theory."
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
Most of what we are fed by our systems, as "rote leaning" details, are "99% ancillary details": not saying these are untrue or wrong, but simply that they are not as important on the ranking or "tiers" of events as geopolitics and grand strategy.
For these geostrategists, divide and rule/conquer is their main strategy, regardless of what you as an individual believe.
Footnotes/key words for further research:
* 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
* Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
* The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Maybe start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year long imperialist war in the ME, but they are not connected or organized. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago it has been all about OIL and outside CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy: Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The "divide and rule"-strategy or technique has a pretty long history in the Levant, which had been a desirable crossroads of civilizations ever since ancient times (land route connecting continents/systems) with changing POWERS implementing the strategy as time passed. If one wishes to understand history, one first has to familiarize oneself with strategies of power. If not, one WILL get misguided, distracted, and fooled into cheering for "imperialism", even whilst thinking one is cheering for "freedom and democracy", or something else. Note that in order to play the game of "divide and rule", it needs a geographical/physical advantage, and POWER.
No POWER, no games...
In a more worldly sense. As far as systems and strategies are concerned. The 15 million people initially injected as "anchor state" (strategy) into the Levant, by an empire after WW1, are not going to rule/dominate the Levant.
Such a small number is always a "tail", and not the "dog".
The tail (lesser power) does NOT wag the dog (greater power). That is just an easily chanted slogan, created by the dividers, in search of scapegoats for the slogan chanters/banner wavers. It is a myth and a tool of deception and misdirection, by those who truly wish to rule by division. The ruling class. The elites, or the "1%-ters", the "$uperhubs", or whatever one wishes to call such a headless mass, united by their interests (§§§footnote).
In the real world, it is the "dogs" of POWER, who "wag the tails".
Modern Israel is a tool, once created by an Empire for a specific purpose, just like every other ME country was created for a purpose.
The sooner ALL these divided Semites in the Levant realize this, the better it will be for ALL Semites. They are ALL tools.
As a guideline how the "divide and rule"-strategy can be defeated, the first tentative examples of African leaders finally realizing the POWER of the "divide and rule"-technique is out there. This technique, same as 100 and 200 and 2,000 years ago uses a multitude of "carrots and sticks": the outside POWER mis/uses differences in race, religion, ethnicity, and uses the appeals to the leaders here in the form of "greed", personal advantages, or promises, or using the "shame game", etc. Whatever works in the desired area in which "disunity" is the goal. The example of African leaders standing united, and repulsing such outside attempts, can be studied. The initial positive observation, is not final though: the "dividers" will return. They will come back, and push, and push, and push until the first weakness appears, which will then be exploited...
"Divide and rule" is in politics and international relations, what nukes are in warfare.
AGE OF EUROPEAN IMPERIALISM
Israel, the artificial entity, had never been created by a god, never mind what the idealogues proclaim. In antiquity it was created by strategists, employing amongst other strategies, the "divide and rule"-technique to inch forward towards the "milk and honey"-land belonging to others already living there, while being the favorites of a god in an ideology. Thousands of years later during WW1 it was recreated by a very worldly empire, Great Britain, employing the "divide and rule"-technique. The goals and aims of this empire, acting in conjunction with France, tacidly nodded of by Washington DC, were very earthly: to rule, and keep the POWER it had amassed as a result of a previous lucky GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE vis-a-vis its European neighbors. For the British Empire starting around 1917: to use mass-immigration as a tool of division as they did all over their empire. Lines were drawn, and rulers imposed onto the people living here, who were never asked as a collective. Whether it was the White Highlands (Kenya) or Palestine, these white immigrants brandished their newly found power (as the favorites of an empire). In other cases (Fiji, for example) mass-immigration of other subjects were used to cause disruption within the original indigenous power structures. This power of the hegemony was transformed into pieces of paper (deeds) granting CHOSEN FAVORITES property in a promised land, and these new favorites/best friends in the form of mass-immigration would then, in return, protect the British Empire's interests. In the Levant, it was the very precious Suez Canal from the threat of potential attacks by land armies, from the north...because the British Empire did as it always did. Create useful tools in a "barrier state" (strategy), for its own perceived potential future gain. That of the automatic ally (strategy). If the Levant was attacked by a northern empire on the way to Egypt/Suez as per Heartland Theory (1904), via land routes where the mighty Royal Navy was useless, the "poor little friends" which had previously been strategically set up as homelands/states, would be defended. Of course, because the Empire cared so much about "poor people"...
The motivations for empires in the beginnings at this watershed of history for the Levant (1917) can be linked to the motivations for empires today.
TODAY
Whatever the outcome in Israel/Gaza in our immediate future might be, the dividers in Washington DC have already achieved their aim. The last "gift" these dividers in Washington DC gave their favorites, was East Jerusalem (Trump admin), simply handed over without asking the people who actually lived here what they wanted for themselves. Eurasia is divided into multiple "teams", all arguing with each other and pointing fingers, playing the blame game, unable to unite into greater powers. Today: The sooner ALL these "divided" people realize this, the better it will be for ALL the people. War is a great divider. Such divisions last generations. "Divide and rule" extends into each and every mind. Line-drawing does not only take place on maps, but it also goes straight though your Limbic system (brain/appeal to emotion) and from there straight through entire societies.
THE DAWN OF MODERN CIVILIZATIONS
In the Bible, the original divider of mankind in the Levant, was the figure God (Old Testament).
Whether one believes in this god or not, doesn't matter. In a systemic analysis, Jesus the philosopher (New Testament) actually OPPOSED his (so-called) father's form of authoritarian and often brutal rule (Old Testament). In antiquity, the figure God had used the "divide and rule"-strategy on and over the rest of mankind in the Levant. From the position of ultimate POWER, God had chosen favorites, and throughout the Old Testament (as a historical series of events) continued to make rulings and grant miracles in the favor of his chosen. Yikes, God even nuked Sodom and Gomorrha in order to make living space for his chosen (lol, just kidding). On a sideline, also the invention of propaganda: These inhabitants were the collective "evil outgroup", who also collectively "deserved to die".
Whatever...
Further indicators: God favored "ruler types" (Old Testament/top down rule) like Moses. No doubt, in a realist analysis, strategists like Moses were most likely the inventor of the SINGLE HEGEMONY as a SOLE God with the all seeing eye, to create unity. To avoid people from creating a miriad of depictions and minor gods, and get constantly distracted by a plethora of personal favorite foreign gods in the lands they were dispered into, and who would end up dancing around idols...
Poor Moses must have been frustrated by his followers' insatiable appetite for entertainment, divisive squabbles, tribal infighting, family fueds, and other distractions from the endsieg: the land of milk and honey they all dreamed of as settler colonists on the move.
THE ROMAN EMPIRE
According to the legacy, Jesus approached commoners (New Testament/bottom up unity).
The polar opposite of God of the Old Testament (see above).
Around the year "0", The Roman Empire had the POWER in the Med, and it had amassed this power as a result of a previous lucky GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE vis-a-vis its neighbors in the Mediterranean. A technological and organisational edge gave it that slight advantage of reach: While it could "reach" all neighbors in the Med, these neighbors could not "reach" Rome, at least for the time being. That would change later as the balance of power shifted.
Around the year 0, one can consider Jesus as the "prototype Hippy" teaching love and charity, in other words the Monty Python take on the observed events, or one can see him as a talented strategist who intended to take on the might of the Roman Empire. Actual evidence then favors a combination of both (the "peaceful revolution" against the Roman Empire): crimes against the state, like sedition, were usually punished by crucifiction. The irony of the Roman Empire killing Jesus, is that they later took the resulting religion as a state religion, in efforts to bring unity to the crumbling empire, by replacing a miriad of gods and resorting to the "one god" as single hegemony over all (state religion). The intention to use an ideology to create unity was too little, too late to save a crumbling empire...
Whether such events mentioned on clay tablets, or scrolls, were actual events, or inventions by philosophers to explain strategies, or simply true at some core and then added onto as the ages passed, to become the well-honed stories we read today, is not even important in any systemic analysis. As I always say, historians and politicians can hardly agree on what happened last week, let alone 2,000 years ago, or 4,000 years ago.
Therefore, best to reduce everything to the tier of "systems/strategies" in order to discover what really happened.
THE END
4
-
British and French leaders went to Versailles under the rather childish illusion that the SU and Germany would stay weak forever and ever and ever....
They ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
4
-
When the attempts at ending "Splendid Isolation" began, London started negotiations with all continental powers, incl. Germany.
Since no historian has ever pointed out that the intention of such talks were ultimately multi-lateral (in other words, single treaties which could form a basis for some yet unknown long-term goal of a "united Europe") we can safely assume that the intentions were bilateral only, and that there were no long-term aims at all at the "veto powers"-level of London politics.
Famously around 1900: "On the initiative of Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain, there were three rounds of British-German talks between 1898 and 1901. The British decided not to join the Triple Alliance, broke off the negotiations with Berlin, and revived the idea of a British-French alliance.[6]" (wiki)
Note how the history books often blame Germany for the failure of these talks. What London wanted was "continental armies" opposing each other, or a "continental army" for the advantage of own British Empire aims and goals. Suffice to say, Berlin recognized the nature of the counter-offers made by London.
Another reason was of course also London's intention to head off the German naval programs (see the exact timeline under the wiki entry "German Naval Laws") up for approval, by dangling the "sweet carrot" of an alliance in front of the German Reichstag. The intention was obviously to "divide" the Reichstag's "hawks" and "doves", which would then torpedo the Naval Laws...lol, pun intended...
London strangely always appeared on Berlin's doorstep, with offers of sorts, when changes to upgrade Berlin's naval laws were underway. Weird coincidence, I'm sure...
Anyways.
Not for the first time, it was London which broke off, because London never intended, or seriously considered such a possibility which would have ended "Splendid Isolation". Not following the year 1890, when it was also negotiated between London and Berlin, and turned down by London, and not at the turn of the century. It does not matter that there were some in London who did favor more European unity. What mattered was that the "veto powers" like Chamberlain, did not regard any unity in Europe as desirable, and would have vetoed any attempt by others to achieve it. All in combination with other lords who also enjoyed the power of the veto, in peer-controlled "top down" groups outside of the forces of democratic means (which were from the "bottom up"). No UK citizen could influence such "peer controlled" ingroups in charge of strategies, because "democracy" did not affect them. The same was true in the USA at the time BTW, in case the criticism is "the undemocratic others" on the continent of Europe. With regards to the question "who controls the strategies", all the powers were in the same boat, and it did not matter if one power was a democracy, and the other more autocratic.
Any attempt to "spin" history in efforts to point fingers elsewhere eventually falls flat, based on evidence. Overwhelming evidence, the nature of which is revealed in the many comments below.
Suffice to say: London did not want unity in Europe, and never aimed for it, because London intended to "divide and gain/impose" from the division of continental powers.
There was never the intention (despite "kind words") for herself to be a part of any European unity, nor to tolerate any form of powerful continental European unity, should this arise somewhere.
Any unity arising on the continent = the feared "single hegemony".
Of course anybody can launch a counter-theory stating that London's ultimate goal was a "United States of Europe" in some or other form. They would then just have to point to how the first binding mutually agreed-upon treaty/alliance which was signed, then intended to incorporate all European powers in some or other "play by ear" step-by-step approach (also two strategies).
Good luck...
Strategies.
Here is the reality.
As a general rule, if there is no signed deal safeguarding own interests then a nation/state must implement steps to safeguard these interests herself. As long as there was no understanding (treaty/alliance/accord) between London and Berlin whatsoever, Berlin would have to accept that Germany would be GB/Empire's enemy in case there was war on the continent, regardless of "who started it."
London determined its "interests" on the continent herself, based on the policy of "balanced powers", and London would oppose the winning side, not the "wrong" side. For London, the sole determining factor was "who was winning", and it would then join the weaker/losing side.
In order to become London's "best fwiend", Germany would have to lose in a war on the continent, regardless of "who started it".
A ridiculous supposition, implied by London's own policies.
Berlin simply reacted to a London policy standpoint, and therefore prepared for this eventuality. The danger of a naval blockade had to be countered as a contingency in case of war (see below essay regarding the "security dilemma of states").
The lords wanted it that way, so the lords got it that way.
The "ententes" with France (1904) and Russia (1907) and the end results of long negotiations going back decades, changed nothing in regards to the above.
"Empires" don't have "friends".
In case a war broke out on the continent, for whatever reason, or whoever "started it" (according to whatever cherry-picked "hopped on" criteria): London would still oppose the winning side, to avoid the single hegemony.
In case the winning side happened to be the own "best fwiends" France and Russia, London would join whomever opposed them...
Should the "Russian steamroller" roll into Germany, crushing Germany against "the anvil" France, it would simply join Germany against Russia and France. Others would bleed, and end up "mutually exhausted", and London would gain for "little ventured" (all strategies).
There was no binding treaty that would have avoided this.
Who needs binding treaties, if one has the geographical advantage, guarded by the strongest navy?
London did not need anything from any continental power, or so they thought.
They thought they could simply "hop around" onto any power, for the short-term gain of avoiding any one (or alliance) from gaining during times of peace, and winning during times of war.
The lords therefore never made serious offers for any alliances in times of peace, with any other power in Europe even though they should have (search for: Machiavelli/Balance of Power).
A "balance of powers" is not subjective, but an objective reality which needs to be attained.
"Friends" means nothing.
London never addressed its own collective attitude problem, which was that it wanted "junior partners" on the continent which would implement the aims and goals of Empire indirectly, and that all that was needed to ensure this was the strongest navy in the world ("Two Power Standard"). Lords with veto powers went around looking for "friends" and these "friends" were given the feeling of being equals. "Feelings" means nothing though.
Interesting in this respect were British intentions to find such perceived "equals/friends" in Sweden/Norway in 1939/40. The strategists here in Scandinavia were smarter, and knew exactly what their "function" was to "empires" (strategies). They therefore tactfully declined British advances in regards to "just passing through to help Finland", recognizing that "ending like Poland" was not a desirable potential future. These strategists knew what they were talking about, and the habit "empires" had of finding gullible "lightning rods" and "soft underbellies" for their own aims and goals, often leaving the chosen "best fwiend" in a state of total ruin. A little known detail tucked away in the folds of a few history books regarding how the world really works, drowned out the 99% of ancillary details...
Norway/Sweden 1939/1940 = Ukraine 2008 - 2022
The Ukraine today, "ending like Poland".
Little friends who will be encouraged and supported to fight to the last man.
Empire and her little helpers: "Can you bring me some more popcorn and chips, dear...great show, great show..."
End of Part 2
(This essay is not a singularity, but fits in with other comments made over the course of the past few years under this video, and must be read as a continuous thought with re. to the strategies states/empires employed, and still emplo
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Bombing German factories was counterproductive in 2 main ways.
1) German "factories" was not what limited German production, but rather the lack of raw materials.
2) after WW2, the new "alpha" Washington DC actually needed both Germany and Japan (the losers) as much as they did GB, France and their empires (the winners). So that by opening up the markets in the US sphere of interest, Germany and Japan quickly recovered, and with a completely modernized economy, quickly overtook GB. There was no alternative, because if not, both would have fallen to communism.
GB, and Empire was seen as a rival, and was "cut down to size".
London no longer had the "leverage" to stand up to Washington DC, and were overpowered. Note, overpowering does not necessarily mean war.
Economic warfare is an old established method.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
So after WW2 while the British population and economy were being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, were having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, were still on war rations till way into the 1950s, and lost the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...
So the London lords woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best friends forever" had stolen all their markets.
And that's how "leverage" works.
Washington DC: "I've taken over almost all your markets now. What are you going to do about it?"
Sad reality?
There was nothing London could do about it.
Washing DC had more leverage to impose, and they took over from their former colonial masters.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Versailles had no real winners.
Its influence and the precedents it set, would determine the mindset of millions for years to come....
There were only short term winners.
In the long term, those who "tried to defend everything, defended nothing" (Friedrich the Great)
For GB and the Empire everything seemed great. A powerful adversary wiped off the map. All foreseeable dangers to Empire gone.
Or, so the plan...
British instincts were almost dictated by the fear of the unknown. That eternal "what if"...
To counter that, they created policies for the continent...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
...and/or followed their instincts...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
In end effect, those who stood up for Empire "defended nothing", because Empire was already in decline in a changing world of nationalism, and only a fool would have tried to cling to "the good ol' days"...
[Obviously, a "pound block of equals" was the best long term strategy, but the world was not ready for "weany libruls" willing to give a few points :-)]
Anyway. Versailles.
Apparently it was ok to have own "little dictators" who who wanted to rule the world, but forgot that the world was too big to rule and HAD to be shared to ensure LONG TERM stability.
Two, were not invited.....
Two were dissed...
And many were standing on the outside, hoping for a better world....
Two thirds of the planet, it seems, were not really a part of the brave new world which was being established to "end all wars".
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@anajxx On the surface, you've made a sound argument.
However, dig a little deeper, and you'll reach a dilemma.
1) What kind of "system" are you going to set up, to experiment on human beings?
2) What kind of person do you think would volunteer for that job? When you've pondered that for a while...do you really want that type of human to roam around in your society?
3) If that doesn't work reducing the crime figures, do you escalate even further? Public executions? Public torture?
How about cutting off parts of criminals' bodies, to "make an example of them"...
Remember that old saying that goes "power corrupts, but ultimate power corrupts ultimately"?
Feelings or emotions are always the worst foundation for a policy or politics.
As far as I'm concerned, "lock 'em up, and make sure they don't come out". Anything more might just be "sowing" a seed, of which the end result is unknown.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Saying that the USA "deserved" 9/11 is the same as saying the USA "deserves" mass-shootings.
The USA is a DEMOCRACY and if a DEMOCRACY cannot fix a fundamental wrong, then the people in such a system will simply always be affected by OWN policies.
Don't like something?
Change it.
Go out into the street, and make use of your 1st Amendment rights.
Complacent? Indifferent? Ignorant of the effects of policies?
So what did you do to stop your governments' constant wars for oil, invasions, support of mass-murdering dictators, the divide and rule policies, the drone strikes on weddings and and air raid shelters....nothing?
Cool if you can kill others, right?
Cool if your snipers can kill teenagers and old men....
Well, there will then simply be an effect, like it or not. Causality is a bitch sometimes, especially when innocents suffer for what others do....
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The more authoritarian German government is often criticised in hindsight (historian fallacy).
Germany was a constitutional monarchy, with limited democracy for "normal" people. That can of course be criticized from a modern perspective, but most other countries at the time weren't better either. Most were far worse.
Germany's government was a reflection of its surroundings, its geographical disadvantage in terms of grand strategy in Central Europe (google "situational dispositioning").
Re. the military influence on the Berlin government: it was certainly not unique either. A reality which many historians today also forget to criticize. Russia, Serbia and other capitals had similar "decision making shortcuts".
In Berlin the military decision makers had no or little parliamentary oversight and it was left to a few strategists to determine "war" or "no war". Again it is easy to criticize using modern criteria, but also easy to understand when using the valid facts at the time: Germany was the only European country threatened by a 2-front war, so that a rapid chain of command was in response to the circumstances at the time (geography).
Cause and effect.
If there was a war in Europe, countries like GB could afford to debate for a few weeks (an island).
The same is also true for France or Russia which had no "2-front war"-danger, and Paris-St Petersburg could also afford a slightly slower reaction time.
The authoritarian attitude and the "short decision making routes" was largely determined by geography. With less warlike and imperialist neighbours, especially Russia (see below comments), Germany could also have afforded to, and would have transformed to a more pure form of democracy earlier and volutarily.
Here we should use biblical logic which says "do not judge unless one is in the shoes of the one being judged".
That is what the Bible as a moral compass suggests, in efforts to avoid "sowing seeds"...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Historians/Politicians can never admit they made mistakes, so they have to create abstractions to cover up their blundering...
Europe was already set up to fail at Versailles.
Because the policies of "balancing powers" were made in the back rooms...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
That Germany was "allowed" to rearm during the 1930's (or "closing an eye to Hitler re-arming") was an effect of a policy dictated to the continent by London, and put into effect, yet again, at Versailles: Balance of Power.
So the later Germany/Hitler re-arming and standing up to rising communism suited the lords in London just fine...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_five-year_plan
[Note, the term "power" encompasses a wide range of qualities from population growth, level of education (including scientists, mechanics, and engineers), scientific advances, level of industrialisation, urbanisation/i.e. advanced society, infrastructure projects, increased GDP, and yes...soldiers, tanks, guns, airplanes...]
As the SU grew, so did Germany.
Perfectly fine, if you ask the lords...
It was "allowed" to grow "balance out" communism.
Why complain about it in hindsight?
4
-
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of West Asia (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders have made use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people. First Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give a weak mind money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Smedley-Butler was simply a "cog in the wheel".
A much bigger wheel called the divide-and-rule technique, practiced by Washington DC.
It means setting up "groups,", "tribes," and "interests" against each other, and then siphoning off gains of some sort from the leveraged divisions. In this case the theater of operatiins was mainly Central America (read the book for details).
One can expand the technique up and down the tiers of power, right up to the tier of IR (international relations), and to date Henry Luce's biggest divide-and-rule success story was Europe, following the year 1900 or so.
Take the historical example of the Indian subcontinent as template, where the technique was used by far far away London, or the Aztec Empire, where the technique of _allying with one tribe/interests against the other, was used by far far away Madrid, and apply it anywhere ...
One day, the world will make fun of WW1/WW2, and say "look and those primitive tribes, fighting each other for the benefit of the OUTSIDERS."
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@AndyFromBeaverto
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
4
-
4
-
August 1914: "Don't worry boys, you'll be home by Christmas...bye, bye...."
September 1939, Poland: "Don't worry boys, you'll be home by Christmas...bye, bye...."
1964, Vietnam: "Don't worry boys, you'll be home by Christmas...bye, bye...."
2001, Afghanistan: "Don't worry boys, you'll be home by Christmas...bye, bye...."
2003, Iraq: "Don't worry boys, you'll be home by Christmas...bye, bye...."
Uhm, do I spot a pattern here?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Oh, it's clear cut alrighty.
There is only "history".
As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives".
One perspective should not rank higher than another.
Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable".
The reality?
As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@DonovanAenslaed The idea that people have that their own countries are "fighting for the weak and powerless" is a misconception.
States and empires fight for their own benefit, and there is always a "price tag" for "help".
States and empires don't "fight to help weak countries/people".
In case there is a power imbalance: The grand strategy is called "the proxy".
The "big brother" is the benefactor.
The "little brother" is always in danger of becoming a proxy, involuntarily sacrificed for the gain of "the big brother".
Unless the "big brother" and the "little brother" are in the same boat by means of a binding treaty, there is no equality in outcome.
Unless the "brothers in arms" are exposed to the same or similar level of danger and are facing the same or similar potential ill-effects due to own actions/inactions, then it is an unequal relationship. Unless all parties suffer similar percentages of financial and human losses, and risk a similar percentage of destruction to their property and territory, then it is in effect "a proxy" which has been set up for the fall.
The ones losing most are always the "proxies" of course (historical analysis, with multiple examples).
Nobody cares much about "poor brutalized Mapuche", but just wait and see what happens in case a sh*tload full of oil is discovered underneath their feet: The poor brutalized Mapuche will be on every single front page for years to come, whipping up sentiment...
Their plight, will be turned into gain ("the proxy" = the tool = the "narrative").
In politics and big business, nobody does anything for free.
How one writes history is more a matter of framing: for example the widespread misconception of "good empires on the right side of history, fighting for the little guy" (aka "the poor people"-argument): notice just how...ahem..."coincidentally" these "poor people" just happen to live in regions of the planet with raw materials/strategic value. Empires are suspiciously very keen on "fighting for democracy/freedom" or "poor people" when these battles take place in areas of the planet benefitting own gain in some or other form, or if it is beneficial to the own rise in power.
In strategy, the so-called "fighting for the little guy/democracy/freedom" is nothing else than "creating a proxy" or "proxy wars" for own gain.
It's the same thing, simply using different words or "putting a spin" on words by changing the perspective, thereby making it more palatable and advantangeous to the own cause, which is own gain.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Versailles had no real winners.
Its influence and the precedents it set, would determine the mindset of millions for years to come....
There were only short term winners.
In the long term, those who "tried to defend everything, defended nothing" (Friedrich the Great)
For GB and the Empire everything seemed great. A powerful adversary wiped off the map. All foreseeable dangers to Empire gone.
Or, so the plan...
British instincts were almost dictated by the fear of the unknown. That eternal "what if"...
To counter that, they created policies for the continent...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
...and/or followed their instincts...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
In end effect, those who stood up for Empire "defended nothing", because Empire was already in decline in a changing world of nationalism, and only a fool would have tried to cling to "the good ol' days"...
[Obviously, a "pound block of equals" was the best long term strategy, but the world was not ready for "weany libruls" willing to give a few points :-)]
Anyway. Versailles.
Apparently it was ok to have own "little dictators" who who wanted to rule the world, but forgot that the world was too big to rule and HAD to be shared to ensure LONG TERM stability.
Two, were not invited.....
Two were dissed...
And many were standing on the outside, hoping for a better world....
Two thirds of the planet, it seems, were not really a part of the brave new world which was being established to "end all wars".
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
tigerhunter77 The reality was that it was all three countries which were responsible for the mess that was central Europe during the second half of the 30s.
After WW1, the ' Big Three' created the artificial entities of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, and tried to impose a French rule over Europe, by condoning a very pro-French dominance (Franco- Polish alliance, and the 'Little Entente')
These diplomatic and political failures led to discontent.
After WW1, the USA and GB hoped they could stay out of future continental affairs, since the conditions created at Versailles was hoped to keep Germany permanently under the French boot.
Unfortunately, the French had a bigger appetite for power than their rotten teeth could bite off :-)
Also unfortunate was that Russia and Germany recovered from WW1, and found that the political situation in no way reflected the economic size of the countries.
Unfortunately, the post- WW1 democracy in Germany was replaced by a dictatorship. It would have been far better to address German grievances with a democratic leadership still in power during the 1920s.
That would have gone a long way to avoiding Hitler, and gaining a strong partner for standing up to the rise of communism.
By the time Chamberlain came along, central Europe was already a shithole, the result of past failures...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
zhang Americans don't want to hear about these kinds of things.
They prefer the whitewashed version of history.
Atrocities, war crimes and crimes against humanity, if mentioned at all, are not discussed with enough criticism.
This leads to a mentality of 'well, its OK to kill, rape, murder, steal, starve, torture and so on', as long as you are fighting on the good side.
Of course, Americans are always on the good side (according to the perpetrators of the crimes), so the apologia gets handed down from one generation to the next...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
King Baldwin IV In case you are looking for a new job, don't try fortune telling :-)
About me, I simply decide on wrong or right, based on the wisdom proclaimed in the the US Constitution.
You know..."liberty", "self-determination"...blah, blah...ALL that stuff.
The end effect of not honoring the wisdom of the Constitution, and the values proclaimed here, and granting the same basic human rights to others, simply come back to haunt your own nation at some point.
You should read up on how Poles (as a nation) imposed themselves on neighbors, starting with a war of aggression....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Ukrainian_War
Educate yourself.
The end effect of that was that 20 years later, TWO mass-murdering dictators decided that they could play that game too....
Yup...Karma is really a big fat bitch...
3
-
3
-
3
-
King Baldwin IV Your point is that the bank robber did not achieve his aim of robbing the bank, because he signed a piece of paper promising not to do it.
Well, FYI the 'bank robber' (North Vietnam) marched into the bank and took what he wanted.
That is called 'not honoring an agreement', and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The only thing the US 'won', is a piece of worthless paper. You may now display your 'piece of paper' in a display cabinet in Washington (note here, NOT in Saigon, now Ho Chi Minh City), and declare yourself the...ahem...'winner'...
Obviously, very few people see things the way you do.
You would probably have tried to enforce the peace treaty, by resuming the war in 1975, pouring billions more into a useless cause, sending thousand of more GIs to the death, killing more Vietnamese civilians, enforcing the stupid 'body count' policy (resulting in overzealous lower ranks murdering Vietnamese civilians, simply declaring them to be VC)...torn the national unity back home in the USA apart with uprisings and riots.....all for 'a principle'...LOL
Look up 'cause and effect', and try not to confuse these. There is also an entire science based on 'confusing cause and effect'.
If you wish, you can do more reading about the subject of logic.
If you don't wish to, that is solely your prerogative.
The US cause was to avoid the North taking over the South, and you didn't achieve that goal.
Trying to avoid the Vietnamese nation from independence and uniting was a lost cause, and they proved it by first throwing out the French, and then the US foreign meddlers. They fought for 30 years, and would have fought ANOTHER 30 years.
The USA had their chance to support Vietnam in its quest for freedom in 1945, and blew it. Personally, I would have preferred to see a friendly, pro-western independent Vietnam come out of WW2.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+James Roach
It was not exactly "brilliant" if the cost of keeping the LW out of Russia, was the end of the British Empire :-)
Even conservative calculations admit that the strategic bombing campaign was the single most expensive undertaking during WW2, and contributed greatly to the post-war decline of the Empire.
Since there was no real alternative than to build up the RAF and Bomber Command, the least one could have expected for this financial drain was an EFFECTIVE use of the weapons. Not a single thesis or report concludes that killing "enemy" civilians was an effective contribution to ending the war, and every bomber sent out with specific orders to kill German civilians was wasted.
http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0413102-132317/unrestricted/Rigole_thesis.pdf
IMO, it was at best "mediocre".
I completely agree that it was brilliant to let the two tyrants bash it out among themselves, wearing each other down and taking care of two threats at the same time.
However, Stalin and the SU should have been supported only as much as absolutely necessary, to bind the three quarters of the resources the Germans had on the Eastern Front. Lend Lease should have been constantly adjusted (or tweaked) in such a way that only effective defense was possible, but not to provide the ability for the vast sweeps far into Eastern Europe (for example, by a drastic reduction in trucks and Jeeps)
With the Red Army only powerful and mobile enough for short advances, there would have been no need to sell off the entire Central Europe and the Balkans (100 million people in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the Balkan states, the Baltic states, etc.)
Central Europe, liberated from the west might have resulted in higher US and British casualties , but it would have made the Warsaw Pact impossible, and the communist states in a much weaker position during the Cold War.
No Korea...no Vietnam....none of the hundreds of proxy wars in the years following WW2....
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+TJ Andersen Makes it sound as if the Bombs caused the Japanese leaders to surrender.
WRONG
Japanese leaders had already come to terms with the fact that the war was over. It was down to the terms, and the status of their "God" Emperor.
Instead of leading to the Japanese surrender, dropping the Bombs might have led to a US invasion to become necessary, instead of avoiding it.
The immediate result of Hirohito declaring the surrender of the Japan, was that a revolt and coup attempt was launched by a small radical group of officers.
It was avoided in the nick of time.
By a hairs breadth, dropping the bombs almost led to a new Japanese leadership, which would have continued the fight resulting in millions of more dying, including hundreds of thousands of US soldiers (sic).
Strangely enough, historians will gladly use hindsight or "put yourself in their shoes" to confirm the conclusion they wish us to believe. According to them, "fat Goering was stupid for not building heavy bombers" (hindsight, and not "put yourself in his shoes"), and "in May 1940, stupid British and French military leaders, were still fighting the last war" (hindsight, not "put yourself in their shoes").
These conclusions have been repeated so often over time, that people don't even recognize them as classical cases of hindsight anymore.
So, according to the very same logic of hindsight, I can also say that "dropping the Bombs, could have led to an invasion becoming necessary, rather than avoid it..."?
Isn't that ironical?
Isn't it ironical that the hundreds of thousands of American soldiers who would have died (sic,), if an invasion had been necessary, were actually saved by Japanese officers who thwarted a coup attempt by radical peers?
Isn't it ironical, that it was not the misguided 'logic' of our own leaders, who thought that their reasoning was 'universal', but the actions of a few Japanese soldiers in Tokyo, which 'made an Allied invasion of Japan unnecessary'.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Robert Sundahl IMO, what you are ignoring (in fact, what most historians ignore) when they create alternative histories (or "what-ifs"), is the reaction a particular action would have resulted in.
Let's take your "German invasion of Czechoslovakia" (in case there had been no deal at Munich) in your fist comment.
Hitler's later actions proves that he ALWAYS cleared his back before he made any move. In the case of a hypothetical war with Czechoslovakia over the Sudetenland, he would have first cleared his "back" by making a deal with Poland. The feelers were already in place.
http://www.polishforums.com/history-34/president-moscicki-hermann-ring-hunting-together-47942/
Poland's past actions had also shown that Polish leaders were also inclined to expand their own empire, at the expense of others. Hitler would certainly have "sold off" the few remaining Germans in the corridor, and promised Lithuania to Poland, in return for some form of alliance against the SU (bear in mind, a non-aggression pact with Poland was already in place.)
Furthermore, that Czechoslovakia could have stood up to a German invasion is a popular myth.
IMHO, studying what happened in Yugoslavia in 1941 (i.e. Croats, Slovenians, etc. surrendering in droves and not fighting for the "rights" of Serbs to rule them from Belgrad), the same would have happened in case Germany had invaded Czechoslovakia.
What were the chances that the 8 million Slovaks, Ukrainians, Germans, Hungarians and others (trapped within borders which did not represent their interests) would have fought for a country ruled from Prague? It would have been left to 7.5 milion Czechs to fight for "Czechoslovakia".
Czech borderline defenses were completely unhinged when Germany annexed Austria, and Slovenian Nationalists would have quickly cut a deal too (as they did in 1939), opening up the entire eastern border.
Also, the superiority of a whole new concept (the, at the time unproven, Blitzkrieg) vs. a few weapons which were better, was later proven. In May 1940, French and British tanks and defenses were also better than German (and the Czech tanks they had taken over), but it did not make much difference. Most alternative histories also do not take into account the impact of air power. Like in most other nations of the time, this aspect had been ignored by the Czechs.
It would probably have been over in days, leaving Germany in a similar situation but WITH Poland as an ally..
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
George the Kafir Most nations which ended up fighting in WW2, did so voluntarily (both on the Axis and the Allied side). In case you mean the major nations, you are entirely correct.
Almost all the other minor Allied nations joined by own free choice, without being threatened or attacked. These included all the dominions (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada), and independant states like Brazil. Most Allied nations only joined as a token show of support, and hardly bothered making a front line contribution, for example Portugal, which greatest contribution was allowing VLR ASW aircraft to operate from the Azores, closing the Black Gap in the Atlantic for German submarines.
Colonies like India weren't even consulted, and GB declared war for them without bothering to ask any of the local leaders.That pissed off many Indian nationalists like Bose, who joined the Axis cause.
Stalin was indeed a very unpredictable fellow. He signed the Percentages Agreement concerning the division of Eastern Europe, and subsequently double crossed Churchill, and took over all of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Romania.
He only honored Greece, as you have written.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Sophie Dockx My knowledge of pre-1900 history is pretty stretchy, so thanks for that interesting read.
I agree that all this secret diplomacy and all those decisions behind closed doors will be our undoing one day. At some point, someone always misjudges and people start dying.
I always try to image what it would have been like as an average citizen at any particular time in history, and what knowledge would have been available to me as an 'average Joe'.
If I had been an American who lived in 1968, I would have believed that Vietnam broke out because North Vietnam attacked the US Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin. Today we know it was a false flag.
If I had been German in 1939, I would have believed that Poland attacked Germany (Gleiwitz Incident, also a false flag).
So what about today?
One would have to be really naive to think that it is not the same today.
Today, the news informs us about what's happening, but we still don't know.
I guess to 'know' and understand what is really happening today, we'd have to stick around for 50 or 60 years, and then read a good history book :-)
3
-
3
-
Blaming Chamberlain for being the main cause of WW2 goes a bit far.
In order to understand WW2, as a concept, one needs to look at the history of Poland directly after WW1.
When that war was over, Poland basically misused the temporary weakness of 2 great WW1 powers (Imperialist Russia and Germany), to increase its size and power by force.
Poland 'grabbed' parts of both empires, with the consent of the 'winners' of WW1, and later endorsed by the League (western border).
In a nutshell - that was a mistake.
Misusing the temporary weakness of a neighbor, can only have grievous effects later on when the balance of power is reversed. By including around 6 million Ukrainians, White Russians and Lithuanians, and around 2 million Germans (at the time) under Polish citizenship, against the wish of these 'minorities', seriously destabilized the state (of the total population of 31 million inhabitants during the 1930s, around 10 million were 'minorities').
That set the stage for future trouble.
In 1939, two despots, Hitler and Stalin found few problems temporarily settling their grievances, and signing a 'N/A pact'....including a 3rd partitioning of Poland...
Why was that so easy?
The main direct causes of WW2, was Hitler and Stalin signing the N/A pact.
That would have happened irrelevant of how Munich unfolded, because the long term effects of Versailles gave the crooks without moral values (Hitler and Stalin), the means to manipulate the situation (central European borders after Versailles) to a much higher extent than the democracies, who at least in part had to consider public opinion....
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
At 22:05 mins
'...the smallest target the RAF could actually hit in 1942, was a town or a city...'
WRONG
They are using the facts of 1941 (basically, the Butt Report), to justify actions undertaken years after that, by which time the conclusions of the report had become largely outdated.
A few days after the Area Bombing Directive was issued in February 1942, the RAF carried out an attack on the Renault works in Billancourt, Paris. This attack was also carried out in the dead of night, but the factory was destroyed. This was achieved by simply changing the tactics. During this attack, experienced crews would be used as pathfinders, and the mass of rookies and average blokes would follow in a bomber stream. They only thing they would have to do is aim for the marked target area. The result was that the factory was completely destroyed.
http://ww2today.com/3rd-march-1942-the-rafs-largest-raid-so-far-on-paris
Still, today, historians don't mention this.
Why not?
This attack clearly shows that the target area was decided on by choice, not dictated by circumstances ( "the weather", "inexperienced crews", "bad navigation", and all those other excuses constantly dished up by our historians).
During this raid, it was the mainly the tactics which had changed. The crews no longer flew to the target individually, as they did pre-1942. Instead, expert pathfinders 'marked' the targets, and the rest simply bombed what had been marked.
Using the Paris attack as an example, Bomber Command should have 'area bombed' (note here, NOT to be confused with 'precision bombing') the German factories and yards. This was also suggested by the MEW during the war, but Churchill didn't value the advice of this group of economical warfare advisors. Sure, a lot of civilians would still have died, BUT a vital factory or yard would have stopped functioning, for weeks, months, or even (with a certain degree of luck) permanently.
Allied soldiers paid the price the folly of choosing city centers and 'enemy civilians' as the main target.
Allied soldiers died needlessly on the battlefields, killed by superior German weapons which should have been destroyed in the factories....
My advice?
Don't simply believe everything dished up to you by historians. Use your own head an think.?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
eugenlitwin Yes, I know. That part where I wrote 'speaking German' was more of a joke on my part.
Before and during WW1 there were no plans to force the people of the new independent countries, like in the short-term Caucasus Republics, Finland, or the Baltic States to 'Germanize'. These people had fought for their own freedom, which came about as an indirect result of the Russian defeat in 1917.
IMO, it was one of the biggest western mistakes in history ever to force Germany to rescind the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and withdraw German (and Austrian- Hungarian) soldiers from eastern Europe, since that was the only thing that bound the SU to peace on these regions.
The Reds used the power vacuum when the Germans retreated, and then invaded and subjected millions of Armenians, Ukrainians, and others to the yoke of communist oppression.
All of these areas could have been free after WW1, if the Allies had simply allowed a certain measure of German political oversight.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Starts off with a strawman argument.
"Strawmanning" is PragerU's favorite strategy.
The Green New Deal is about creating forward facing jobs, at the expense of "the old". Instead of subsidizing oil and coal with billions of taxpayer dollars every year, invest these billions in the future, to keep up with the rest of the world.
Fun fact, is that China and Europe don't care about American conservative policies, and are investing in the future.
But yeah, I guess if the internet existed a 100 years ago, PragerU would have created videos about "evil cars" and "stinking unreliable engines", and telling you all about how protecting the interest of the "horsebuggy industry", farmers growing hay, vets, and all that had to be protected...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Seeing how most of the comments are slogans and appeals to emotion, I'll just jump into the fray.
For hundreds of years, the British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations around the world. Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images"). When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets". The locals defending their own? Pfffft. Nobody cared...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps (called "penal colonies"), and terror bombing innocents called Air Policing...
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s killed their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Start pulling the rug from underneath their feet...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
No, he's not justifying anything.
He's using irony and sarcasm.
Crenshaw lost his vision fighting in wars that need never have been.
Remember Rambo?
Remember those "brave Mujahedeen"?
You can be damn sure that Crenshaw caught the sarcasm, and therefore let it go...
Crenshaw lost his eye, while thousands of his buddies lost their lives, and hundreds of of thousands were wounded, or are fighting to keep sane (PTSD). Yup. Fighting exactly those same "brave Mujahedeen" that other Americans had trained, equipped, and funded.
Yes, my friend.
Because the populist slogan "the enemy of the enemy is my friend" is a fake. The people of Afghanistan will always view every foreign presence as the enemy (read some history).
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" was bs all along, because the people of Afghanistan never viewed Americans as "friends". ROTFL....fooled by Hollywood...
And simply because after "the enemy" is defeated, you're still left with an enemy, aren't you?
It is known to people with at least some brains as "false dichotomy". It leaves you under the impression that there are only 2 options (either friend, or enemy) while in fact several other options are available.
Get smart.
Learn to start thinking like your leaders think.
The people who create the wars (see my first comment. and I posted a few new ones under the video).
Yes, they will gladly send you in order so that you lose your eyesight, or worse...
3
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
3
-
3
-
3
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same people and systems. Different times. Same games.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
She is trying to warn America about the real danger to their future, which isn't "moooozies wanting 72 virgins"....lmao
It's right wingers, like 1930 in Germany.
11th Hour Remnant Messenger, American Renaissance, American Freedom Party, American Nazi Party, Church of Jesus Christ-Christians, Aryan Nations, Asatru Folk Assembly, Heathenry movement, Council of Conservative Citizens, Creativity Alliance, the World Church of the Creator, Creativity Alliance or Church of Creativity, RAHOWA, EURO, Hammerskins, Identity Evropa, Ku Klux Klan, National Alliance, National Association for the Advancement of White People, National Socialist Movement, National Alliance, Nationalist Movement, The Order, Northwest Territorial Imperative, Pacifica Forum, Phineas Priesthood, Christian Identity, Volksfront, White America, Inc., White Aryan Resistance, and others...
All of the above are connected, infiltrating local governments and police forces. Some members commit acts of terrorism.
In the meantime, your media and politicians are largely docile and blind to this threat.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Actions have consequences...
However, British leaders were fools, and ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
[Search for: britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostrategy, and lost their Empire...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage" see footnote), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. They would wait.
This is divide-and-rule.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
During the 19th Century, the Ottoman Empire was famously called "the sick man of Europe".
By the 1930s, the new "sick men" were London and Paris, desperately trying to hold on to empires, long after the days of "empires" were over.
All the events of the 1930s could be called "a bed they made for themselves at Versailles", and in 1939 they had to sleep in it.
In 1919 there were 2 who were not invited (Germany and the new SU), and in 1939 there were 2 (note, two, not one) who challenged the New World Order set up at Versailles...
Stalin gave Hitler a "blank cheque" to invade Poland.
Hitler gave Stalin a "blank cheque" to invade Poland, the Baltic States, Finland, and Romania.
And there was another world war.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
British leaders went to Sudan and Iraq, bombing everybody else, thinking nobody could bomb them...
The instigators like best buddies Harris, Portal, Trenchard and Churchill went waaaay back. They had no problems terror bombing women and children in Iraq during the 1920s, in "ops" euphemistically called "air policing", and kept a secret from the general public back home.
It was justified by the elites in London as "a cheap alternative to land forces".
So what did the citizens of Iraq ever do to GB? Or neighbors? Or did they invade anyone to "deserve it" too?
From historynet:
"Air policing is a relatively simple strategy. Aircraft operating out of well-defended airfields are supported by fast-moving armored car squadrons. When an outlying village or isolated tribe refused to pay taxes or ignored the central government, airplanes would be dispatched to strafe and bomb the offending group. Trenchard explained he could achieve results more cheaply with his RAF squadrons..."
Such fun, terror bombing and strafing civilians, cowering in tents and simple villages made of mud and stone. Such a "great opportunity" (sic.) to test new weapons, like delay action bombs (time fuses), or fragmentation bomblets on innocent civilians...
Once a terror bombing fanboy, always a terror bombing fanboy.
Their pathetic empire's HQ back home in London, Bristol, Coventry, Hull, Birmingham, etc., etc. would one day "reap" as it "sowed", a hundred times over...
Well.
Who would've guessed the 2,000-year old biblical logic counts for all...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Re. the question (rhetoric) of "What else could have been done?/How should anybody have known that strategic bombing would turn out to be not nearly as successful as hoped? (or as post-1945 studies reveal)"
Re. "efficacy", a stated policy (thinly veiled by euphamisms) of flattening entire cities, it was indeed very little "bang for the buck" when compared what GB put into it on their production side, seeing how a strategic air force is (and was back then) the most expensive form of warfare.
Why was Area Bombing entirely flawed from the outset? (1942 perspective). Also the related, and often repeated (but fallacious) rhetoric like "..but how much stronger would Germany have been?'
That is not a rhetorical question.
As you know, the objective of the rhetorical question is to place an opposing view under pressure, by asking a question to which would reveal a weakness in the opposing side's logic.
In this case, it not a successful example of rhetoric, because the answer is simple.
German production was limited by resources.
A truism re. "production" is that it depends on 3 main factors: raw materials, labour, finance (incl. the construction of production sites).
I don't wish to overcomplicate this, but to KISS it: If even one one these is missing/lacking then obviously production will suffer.
In a nutshell.
Europe in 1940 (Nazi sphere of influence) lack the resources for a protracted war in which production figures would be a determining factor for the Axis to win.
Re. Europe.
No Bauxite (or very little, compared to the entire sphere of influence in Allied hands or secured connections) = no aluminum
No Nickel = no armor
No Chrome = no high grade steel
No tungsten = no tools
No rubber = no tires for trucks
No oil = no mobile warfare.
German production would not have been significantly higher, because they did not have the raw materials, or access to those places in the world which had these resources. Anybody who states that 'German production would have been higher', should also follow it up with a full assessment of where the extra raw materials for a higher production would have come from, and more importantly, the oil to fuel the weapons of warfare (tanks, planes, artillery tractors, etc.)
German production came to a standstill around early 1945, when advancing ground forces cut off the last remaining connections to the sources of raw materials.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite?
Today we see millions of followers of Islam, praying in their mosques in West Asia, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS, and 125 years ago we saw millions of followers of Christ, praying in their churches, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS.
We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Meanwhile, after more than two years Boris Johnson has admitted that the war in the Ukraine is a proxy war for US/collective Western interests, and Vladimir Zelensky has stated that "there are those in the West who don't mind a long war [in Ukraine]" to extend Russia, using his peoples as tools for the gain of outsiders who drool over the profits (Mitch McConnell), or lust after the systemic expansion possible as result of great upheavals amongst human beings. Does this take the wind out of the sails of the "paid Putin puppet"-screamers, blindly chanting their MSM narratives against those who have said this from day 1? Not at all. In order to fit their world views, these tools will deny reality, rattle down the narrative to a point of making total fools of themselves. They would now have to believe that Boris Johnson, or Vladimir Zelensky are "paid Putin puppets", in order to square a circle...
This is exactly what is meant with fools arguing their way into the trenches their own leaders have deceived them into.
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into.
Eastern Europe.
Balkans.
Black Sea.
Caucasus region.
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control).
How old is this game called "marching empire"? Old, very old....
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Seeing how most of the comments are slogans and appeals to emotion, I'll just jump into the fray.
For hundreds of years, the British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations around the world. Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images"). When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets". The locals defending their own? Pfffft. Nobody cared...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps (called "penal colonies"), and terror bombing innocents called Air Policing...
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s killed their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The story of how the Brits lost their Empire...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
If anybody wishes to know what is in store for the EU after 2025, look back in history to what the USA did to the British Empire after WW2, when it was bankrupt and weak. The first victim of the American Century was not as proclaimed and the generally accepted narrative of history, that "it was the USSR" (sic./Truman Doctrine, "Iron Curtain"-narrative), but the British Empire, which was cut down size turning London from "British lion" to "poodle" in around 25 years, using economic warfare.
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
3
-
3
-
3
-
Generally, an excellent narrative, but after 28:00 minutes, the "old Churchillian Chamberlain bashing" starts...
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
[See "Britannica, Balance of Power]
It was geography (English Channel) which allowed London to act or react (political/military omissions, as well as commissions) whichever way it pleased...friends one day, enemies the next...
If one wishes, one can criticise this disastrous policy, but not the leaders who implemented it.
Chamberlain, and the "London lords" were simply doing what London always did in modern times: playing the "balancing powers"-game.
You can't have it both ways.
It's either right, or wrong.
Because in parallel to Nazi Germany, there was another power rising...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@HistoryHustle In February 1942, the decision was taken to "flatten Germany".
That came with a price tag GB could not burden.
End effect? Bankruptcy.
Outcome? After WW2, GB could no longer stand up against its rivals, Washington DC (yup, it was a rival for markets) the commies in Moscow.
Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
3
-
3
-
@HistoryHustle Finally.
In evidence to support the above theory that the entire reasoning behind "Area Bombing" was to remove Germany as a "power" in the Balance of Power scheme of things.
Usually the rhetoric justifying intentionally targeting civilians in city centers goes along the lines of "..but how much stronger would Germany have been?'
That is not a rhetorical question.
The objective of the rhetorical question is to place an opposing view under pressure, by asking a question to which would reveal a weakness in the opposing side's logic.
In this case, it not a successful example of rhetoric, because the answer is simple.
German production was limited by resources.
No Bauxite = no aluminum
No Nickel = no armor
No Chrome = no high grade steel
No tungsten = no tools
No rubber = no tires for trucks
No oil = no mobile warfare.
German production would not have been significantly higher, because they did not have the raw materials, or access to those places in the world which had these resources. Anybody who states that 'German production would have been higher', should also follow it up with a full assessment of where the extra raw materials for a higher production would have come from, and more importantly, the oil to fuel the weapons of warfare (tanks, planes, artillery tractors, etc.)
Evidence for the above? WW1. There was no strategic bombing, and the Allies outproduced Germany/Austria-Hungary easily.
German production came to a standstill around early 1945, when advancing ground forces cut off the last remaining connections to the sources of raw materials.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
How our leaders avoid "avoiding war", and then fabricate a racket...in three easy steps.
Step 1:
Engineer a situation, or take on a standpoint one would never accept as "acceptable", if placed in the same situation oneself, and refuse to budge. Ignore all warnings.
Step 2:
Watch on as the situation deteriorates.
Find a few "good fwiends", who "see things the same way", and refuse to budge.
Send around a few good guys, who will try their best...
Ignore all further warnings.
As "crisis" turns to gloom, do as little as you can possibly get away with.
Especially, don't sign anything worded in such a way that it would actually avoid war.
Step 3:
When the guns start firing: Here comes the most important step. Do as the Bible says (lol) and point the finger everywhere else, and wash own hands in innocence (using the easy "Pontius Pilate"-way out).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
He's explaining the observed realities which evolve out of a proactive strategy of "divide and rule," by the hegemon.
It's divide-and-rule.
At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule.
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others...
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favouritism.
"Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Africa, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the behavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD"
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact. It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of. What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of those in search of profit and in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. For the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact that it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The "pitiful retreat" from the continent in 1940, was a result of a geographical advantage London enjoyed compared to continental powers.
In a nutshell, they "put their tail between their legs" because they could and France couldn't.
As far as London was concerned, France was a part of the continent...a useful tool to protect the British Empire.
Nothing more.
Nothing less.
The London lords misused whoever stepped forward to offer themselves, as useful tools. Paris accepted, and was therefore abandoned like the "tool" is was.
Outdated.
No longer useful to the lords...
Remember the above.
Because the nice part follows...
There is a big picture.
In fact, let's call it a "massive picture", almost never addressed in documentaries and popular history books (unless very specific ones about geopolitics).
Because, the type of rule or economy plays little role in the outcome of whether one "rules the world" or not.
What really counts is a geographical advantage.
Geography plays a far bigger role.
At the turn of century London "ruled the world" because geography isolated them from the continent and their island status gave them the upper hand at a time when war was still the common way to determine "top dog" or not....
When development of weapons produced ever further reaching weapons of war, GB's island status did not offer the same measure of protection anymore...so they went down.
The weapons of 1900 couldn't harm the British Empire, but the weapons of 1945 could....
In that era around WW2, it was the USA which was (as the sole power) isolated from this "great game", and benefited as the result of its geographical isolation, and because there was that "one ring which ruled them all"...lol, but in a good way of course.
And it wasn't only the forces of evil who wanted to "rule the world", but also people who thought they had a God-given right to do so...
[Google: The American Century and what was behind it]
...and who thought they were better than everybody else...
[Google: American_exceptionalism]
In 1945, it was GB which couldn't "run" anymore.
The world had shrunk.
New technology and weapons made the world a much smaller place that the turn of the century (say 1900).
As far as Washington DC was concerned, GB was a part of Europe.
LMAO. Talk about "a little misunderstanding".
3
-
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast).
In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side").
For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere.
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the "logic" of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this.
The bunker boys and manipulators, are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours.
Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France, and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them.
This is divide-and-rule.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Correct.
For Bomber Command and the leaders like Lindemann who advocated "Area Bombing" it was premeditated.
Douhet's initial doctrine proposals for future wars was basically: the bombardment of industry, transport infrastructure, communications, government and "break the will of the people".
The "morale bombing" bombing part of that is morally flawed.
The same people who would state that "soldiers lining up civilians and mowing them them down" (like their enemies do) is despicable, or immoral, then turn around 180˙ and say "burning people alive in their cities is 100% OK as long as we win".
Note here.
This is the "kill Oma Schickelgruber" jokingly referred to in books as a widespread attitude during the war.
Morally, most of the Allies (leaders and citizens alike) had no problem in making a civilian the prime target, as long as own moral deficiency can be hidden behind a suitable excuse ("we were actually aiming for factories, but missed").
This is a lie.
Civilians were not "collateral damage" (the euphemism used today) as the propaganda claimed during the war.
They were already the prime target of Area Bombing (the will of the people).
Even an advocate of Douhet's proposals should have been able to foresee in any prewar appraisal that bombing Germany "to reduce production" was a fallacy in reasoning.
German (or any continental European country) production was not limited by a lack of factory space or production facilities, but entirely dictated by a lack of resources (or in other words, the lack of raw materials already placed a natural cap on the production in any continental European country).
In their analysis of the main weakness of the Axis, the USA was spot on, and therefore proposed attacking a few key industries again and again. If they proposed this in 1942, it means that they had already deduced the above before even flying a single raid.
The US proposal was the correct one (no "hindsight/learning curve"-argument).
At the same time, the RAF one of "dehousing/morale bombing" was wrong (again no hindsight/learning curve). Analysis of London, Coventry, Liverpool had already revealed that if bombed, civilians become closer knit, and rally around those who protect them (government/leaders).
3
-
3
-
The real "WW1", or first "great" war actually took place from 1803 to 1815.
In terms of scope and victims, it was mainly limited by technology. Still, despite the limited capabilities of the weapons of the times, there were more than 4 million victims, in all corners of the globe.
The first truly "global war".
Notice however how historians (correctly btw) separate this "first global war" (aka The Napoleonic Wars) into seven distinct phases, based on a scientific and exact analyses of the reasons/motivations at the time, whereas for WW1/WW2 there are attempts to create one big emotionally steered mashup.
Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, historians are of course far more candid re. "motivations/reasons" (note: the real reasons, not the ancillary details). Most people are entirely emotionally detached from events 200 years ago, so there is also no need to spin history either to appease an own population.
There are no endless debates about "Who started it?"
The Napolionic Wars were of course declared by London, as a preventive war, in May 1803, and the (correct) reason/motivation given for this declaration of war, by most historians, is that it was to "avoid the single hegemony" on the continent.
In 1914, "WW1" evolved out of a local conflict, which started in the Balkans, and through a few unfortunate twists and turns developed into the second truly "world" war, in order to establish domination and rule.
Hanlon's Razor states "not to attribute to mallice, what can adequately be explained by stupidity", and with WW1, Europe started its own demise because of efforts to remain individually dominant/relevant.
Of course, on the other side of the Atlantic, wars were always fought for unity, and common goals (aim of expansion).
The American Century was a ship already launched, but renamed halfway.
The "ship" started its journey with a war of unity (Civil War because of "poor slaves" aka "the emotional argument"), then expanding westwards (Manifest Destiny, Mexican-American War), getting rid of entities which could be misused by foreign powers to "divide and rule" ("Trails of Tears" of the unfortunate "losers" of history), and the consolidation of own strength (Monroe Doctrine/Spanish-American War).
And with that, the "ship" bumped up against the "dock", which was European rule and domination of the globe.
Didn't anybody notice?
The history of the west I guess, in a five minute nutshell...
3
-
3
-
3
-
Under De Gaule, France finaly put on their "big boy boots".
No more begging for Spitfires (Battle of France), and no more begging for help from an uncaring world of "fwiends" with an attitude problem: cheering you on in an hour of need...but little else. No soldiers, no tanks, no battleships, no honor. Just "hopes and prayers", just silent admiration, and a pat on the back...but not much more. Paris would no longer be begging for help, or grovelling for assisistance. No more having your ships blown up by "best fwiends" and their "pwomises", if one is down and out and forced to surrender by a vastly superior enemy.
No more "cordial" amistad.
Under De Gaule, France had own nukes now, and a "new best fwiend" Konrad Adenauer, and leverage.
A marriage made in heaven :-)
Finaly after hundreds of years, and with a different set of "balance of power", it would not be "empires" squaring off, but "new best friends" with a common enemy this time, and if those Russians were going to come storming through the Fulda Gap, it wasn't London or Washington DC which was going to decide whether West Germans were "poor enough" to start a "world war" for.
Well done France.
One might not like De Gaule for all his other faults, and the list is long. But he did get that one thing right. He rid France of the need for "best fwiends". No more "faraway empires" with a "geographical advantage" going "well, it doesn't really look that bad...for me...so good luck..."
Accompanied by snidy remarks of "who saved you last time duh?", De Gaule did the only right thing: if Paris wasn't on the same level as Washington/London in NATO, it would be out, and an "associated power".
(Google how that unfolded with "France/De Gaulle/Force the Dissuasion")
No more "cordial" ententes.
No more "pwomises" to the one with an inferior geographical location.
Paris would decide if Germans were "poor enough" to help, not London with their "well most Belgians, but not all of them are 'poor enough', but the people in Luxembourg are not really 'poor enough' to deserve our blood"-attitude problem ...lol. That what happens if one believes "pwomises" of being "best fwiends".
No contract.
Just "pwomises"...
When it comes to the crunch, or in an hour of need, it's "me first" in the dog-eat-dog world of big boys and their aspirations.
From that point on, Paris would decide, and Paris only, if Germans are "poor enough"...and wipe a sufficiet amount of mother Russia off the map, should a single Russian ever set a single foot on a single "poor West German" in their new barrier state.
And De Gaule?
I guess he threw in a bit of that "revenge is a dish best served cold"-attitude. When London was desparate for "markets", Paris denied entry into the EU with a veto. Third in line, after the "old best fwiends of WW2," Washington DC, and Moscow (rescinding the "percentages agreement" for markets in Eastern Europe), France would now kick London while it was down and out, economically weak and economically failing...
De Gaule: "You want markets for your Vauxhalls? I want markets for my Citroens and my Renaulds..."
(Google: "Paris vetoes UK applications for EU membership 1963 and 1967")
If it were up to De Gaule, no more London "hopping onto" some continental power across the English Channel, when it suited London, only to "hop" somewhere else the minute it didn't suit London no more...
And De Gaule was right: the economy in the UK started brightening up, and viola...Brexit.
Oh, they did ooops do it again...
After EU-membership did its fair share of pulling the cart out of the rut of after a failure of "Empire", it was "we're Brexiting now. Cheerio...oh, but we want that and that and that and that..."
No responsibilities.
Just advantages.
Just like the "600 London lords" of Empire geostrategists.
Loosely quoting Lord Palmerston: "England has no eternal friends and no eternal enemies. Only eternal interests."
And that counts for everyone.
"King" one day, "pauper" the next.
That's how it goes in the dog eat dog world of "empires"...
Too bad, London didn't make some real friends while it was "in charge".
3
-
At 25:30 mins "..but how much stronger would Germany have been?'
That is not a rhetorical question.
The objective of the rhetorical question is to place an opposing view under pressure, by asking a question to which would reveal a weakness in the opposing side's logic.
In this case, it not a successful example of rhetoric, because the answer is simple.
German production was limited by resources.
No Bauxite = no aluminum
No Nickel = no armor
No Chrome = no high grade steel
No tungsten = no tools
No rubber = no tires for trucks
No oil = no mobile warfare.
German production would not have been significantly higher, because they did not have the raw materials, or access to those places in the world which had these resources. Anybody who states that 'German production would have been higher', should also follow it up with a full assessment of where the extra raw materials for a higher production would have come from, and more importantly, the oil to fuel the weapons of warfare (tanks, planes, artillery tractors, etc.)
Evidence for the above? WW1. There was no strategic bombing, and the Allies outproduced Germany/Austria-Hungary easily.
German production came to a standstill around early 1945, when advancing ground forces cut off the last remaining connections to the sources of raw materials.
3
-
3
-
Washington DC is a snakepit in which the dividers writhe and slime about.
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
WW1 was the biggest US "regime change operation" in history (see the primary source below).
Though te war was not necessarily started with the intent of "regime change" as done with smaller less powerful states in the classical "regime change ops" we usually associate with the post-WW2 era of the Cold War, the situation as it unfolded (1914-18) was exploited in order to impose a "regime change".
"If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler." - Winston Churchill, 26th April 1946
That short statement practically has "regime change" written all over it.
That short statement also makes it clear what happens if one removes the gatekeepers (monarchy) of a political system from power, which then opens the door for all kinds of ideologues.
They thought they could throw out the monarchs, and morph Germany into becoming "more like us" (old Roman technique of power), and there would be no consequences.
Whatever they thought, one thing is clear: US think tanks who wrote the 14 Points Speech KNEW they were far enough away from Europe not to have to face any consequences should their own suggestions combined with the invariably following top-down implementations result in blowback (causality).
So what had led Churchill to make such a statement? As part of the 14-Point Plan, Wilson demanded that Germany de-throne Wilhelm II, before any peace talks could begin. The Allies also refused a German delegation as part of the peace talks in 1919. WW1 was the USA's hitherto biggest "regime change operation" (Germany). Because here is what they tell you is history in thousands and thousands of books and docs: the "German people" or "German leaders" were the ones who "forced Wilhelm II into exile, or " forced the autocrats to abdicate because they were angry" or variations of that. Here is what they (usually) don't say (lie by omission): That it was the own side which had previously coerced other German leaders like Max von Baden into forcing the German government out of office, because that was a condition for armistice negotiations to take place.
Here is the timeline of events during 1918:
1) Coerce German leaders to topple the current Berlin government.
2) German leaders realizing there was no alternative to stop the war, than to topple the current Berlin government.
3) Omit step 1) for the "popular narrative of WW1", or pretend it never happened, and then write history that pleases the own feelings by simply pinning the flag on the timeline, saying that the history of that event started on the day chosen by the writers of history. In order to find out what really happened, an interested history fan would have to delve into very specific books that cover the entire series of events, to find out the details. But, who does that? Which popular history doc we "see on TV" ever does that?
From the primary source:
"The President would deem himself lacking in candor did he not point out in the frankest possible terms the reason why extraordinary safeguards must be demanded. Significant and important as the constitutional changes seem to be which are spoken of by the German Foreign Secretary in his note of the 20th of October, it does not appear that the principle of a government responsible to the German people has yet been fully worked out or that any guarantees either exist or are in contemplation that the alterations of principle and of practice now partially agreed upon will be permanent. Moreover, it does not appear that the heart of the present difficulty has been reached. It may be that future wars have been brought under the control of the German people, but the present war has not been; and it is with the present war that we are dealing. It is evident that the German people have no means of commanding the acquiescence of the military authorities of the empire in the popular will; that the power of the King of Prussia to control the policy of the empire is unimpaired; that the determining initiative still remains with those who have hitherto been the masters of Germany. Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action, the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the world do not and cannot trust the word of those who have hitherto been the masters of German policy, and to point out once more that in concluding peace and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany."
Source: International Notes: Diplomatic Notes, Prepared By Allan Westcott, Ph. D., Instructor, U. S. Naval Academy, November 1918 Proceedings Vol. 44/11/189
Washington DC power mongers employ old Roman techniques of power, including the "morphing" of systems which favor the own ideological expansionist goals, and one of these old Roman techniques is divide-and-rule. In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Not only Germany was divided, but also Europe was divided with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in popular narratives composed mostly of "being friends" even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, so by 1945 the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Footnote:
Note that according to Machiavelli, the "princes" connected to the land and who benefited from their hereditary rule were also the GATEKEEPERS and were connected to what they saw as theirs. Whether one likes this style of inherited wealth and power or not, their role was the gatekeepers of being the managers of own affairs. Opposed to that, in strategy and human nature, the "mercenary" is the OUTSIDER (internationalists/globalists) who came/come or the profit and gain and who are NOT "connected" to the land and its peoples at all, and place their own interests, often vested interests, BEFORE the people who live on the land. This narrative is often distorted today into meaning that "to be a Machiavelli is to be an a-hole" which is a distortion of what the book was about. Machiavelli states clearly to keep ones "princes" in POWER, for to lose them would mean losing the GATEKEEPERS, who via their own vested interests, also protect the people who live in entire regions of the world. Via Trojan Horses, "democracies" can be CAPTURED (culturally-, economically-, politically-, emotionally and militarily), as a process which can be studied as the actors reveal themselves through their actions/events. This can be studied as systemic analyses.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
History did not start on the 24th Feb 2022.
___________________
The role of "Cherry picking" in narrative history, so that own acts of imperialist measures are justified.
"Cherry picking" is one of the most common fallacies in reasoning in analysing history. One of the most common cases is "picking" a date or event, usually one which is favorable to the own imperialist cause or the own empire's "marching route", as in narrative history, and then loudly proclaiming "history starts here," usually accompanied by a whole lot of "finger pointing" (fallacies/appeals to cognitive biases).
The organisations of MIMAC (Military Industrial Media Academic Complex) then use other fallacies in reasoning to deepen this effect, for example "History Channel"-style TV documentaries as entertainment for the plebs. The MSM media or historians pick up the date or events, ignore or downplay everything else that happened before (aka context), and state again and again, that "history starts here". All this combined with regurgitating cognitive biases to write fallacious narratives of events. The history fan can now feel totally justified cheering the d@th of millions, the enforced refugee status of millions more, mass-starvation, torture centers, total war measures, divide-and-rule/conquer/control measures, terror bombing, the mass-destruction of villages, and the stealing of the generational wealth of entire regions of the globe thereby turning these into "down/out" border regions for renewed divide-and-rule/destroy measures, so the "games" can continue on the marching route of the empire...
All of the above imperialist measures can be supported, including support by proxy (as taxpayer for example), and not feel an ounce of guilt for the own systemic behaviour.
This effect of mind-control via fallacies in reasoning and the exploitation of cognitive biases of individuals, is not necessarily intentional, since anybody can make formal- or informal fallacies in reasoning like cherry picking data (incl. dates) for a story. One can however point out the fallacy or bias, and then observe how the originator of the fallacy reacts to being countered or refuted. That then contains a wealth of information re. human nature.
Cherry picking a date on a timeline is one of the most common means of deception.
There are specific examples of human being who love to use this technique to manipulate how millions of people think, and how to create the "ingroup".
The intention is to mislead away from what is really happening today, or lay "breadcrumbs" away with regards to what happened in the past.
"As long as people believe in absurdities, people will commit atrocities." - Voltaire
"All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed, they must rely exclusively on force." and "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell, 1984
People already "believe absurdities", and even the smartest ARE already deceived, because as long as they "finger point" at (only) totalitarian states or authoritarian governments, they who are our "teachers" will not see and thereby they contribute to the eternal "rule" of the strategy of divide-and-rule...
As long as Europeans see their European Civil War (1914-45 see footnote) as a battle between good and bad they will keep on losing. The Chinese leadership figured out that their "Century of Humiliation" (1837-1947) needed to end, by FIRST kicking the outsiders out. How hoarding their "leased" and "lended" equipment as a means to an end during the final era of outside meddling (1940-45) figures in, is simply a concept of power. As long as Europeans (collective concept) keep on thinking in terms of words rather than concepts they will remain tools of the higher power. As long as Europeans keep on thinking in terms of "good/bad" rather than "Europeans/outsiders" they will remain tools of outside "dividers". Same counts for the Arabian Peninsula, and anywhere else on the planet. Their "civil war" has been going on for centuries, and Arabs on the Arabian Peninsula have always been "divide and ruled over. NOT for themselves, but by outsiders, for the benefit of outsiders.
To the overwhelming percentage of Westerners and those within their spheres of influence (like beneficiaries of western rule/domination all over the globe) all historical events which are clustered together with a "starting date" are fabricated, by cherry picking dates on a timeline which can emotionally rile people up, and clustering events into storyline which feels good to the reader/listener.
----
Footnote:
In Western narratives, from the Anglo-Saxon/Eurocentric world view, a war inside East Asia concerning a variety of ethnic, religious and linguistically related peoples is known as a "civil war", but for the same historians and storytellers a war in Europe between a variety of ethnic, religious, and linguistically related peoples is a "world war". This is the logic of the "world according to the West" (USA/collective West), telling the rest of the world that "our problem is your problem, but your problem is solely your problem".
Just like they have done these past 500 years, and it's "just how it is" and the "rules based order".
An ingroup, too blind to see how the world is changing around them in their fairy tale construct of "good vs. bad".
Well, it's not 1600, or 1700, or 1800, or 1900, or even the year 2000 anymore.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened. The word "rule" also constitutes a "trigger", or natural aversion, which would mean psychologically oposing a theory, simply based on the words used.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please, lol.
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage (see below comments thread for a few). These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favoratism.
"Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Footnote:
Note that according to Machiavelli, the "princes" connected to the land and who benefited from their hereditary rule were also the GATEKEEPERS and were connected to what they saw as "theirs." In strategy and human nature, the "mercenary" are the OUTSIDERS (internationalists/globalists) who came/come or the profit and gain are NOT "connected" to the land at all, and place their own interests, often vested interests, BEFORE the people who live on the land. This narrative is distorted into meaning that "to be a Machiavelli is to be an a-hole" which is a distortion of what the book was about. Machiavelli states clearly to keep ones "princes" in POWER, for to lose them would mean losing the GATEKEEPERS, who via their own vested interests, also protect the people who live in entire regions of the world. Via Trojan Horses, "democracies" can be CAPTURED (culturally-, economically-, politically-, emotionally and militarily), as a process which can be studied as the actors reveal themselves through their actions/events.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Yes, the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and "cute Uncle Joe" for fools who don't understand how the world really works...
Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world "you shall not have nuclear weapons!"
[Google how that unfolded with: "history/british-nuclear-program]
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
Irony and sarcasm aside, but that is some weird "special relationship" if you ask me.
3
-
3
-
@arudegesture Hello and thanks for reading.
Concerning your 2nd paragraph, I don't think there should should be different "versions" or "rankings" of history, like "British History" or "Marxist history", but only "history".
As long as the facts are correct, there are only perspectives.
One perspective should not rank higher than another.
Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable".
BS. People who think so are apologists for wrongful actions. If one makes pathetic excuses for immoral deeds in the past, one is more likely to excuse them in the present.
Furthermore, as the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
[Just a preemptive note for the apologists with the "...but, but, but rationing food wasn't possible because the society was too primitive"-excuses.]
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe? lol
Yes, as far as Empire is concerned, "good riddance" comes to mind.
Luckily for the Brits and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective).
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Back in the 1990s Tel Aviv was sneakily trying to introduce Apartheid, at the same time South Africa was busy ending it under international pressure. Of course, Israel was (according to imperialist logic) "doing nothing wrong"...
At the time the world was applauding South Africa as it ended Apartheid, and simultaneously the world was applauding Israel's attempt at introducing Apartheid, branding it as just "trying to create peace."
Note, whilst singling out the Palestinians/Arafat as being "unreasonable" and "rejecting the Israeli olive leaf of peace...blah, blah..." as the accepted narrative of the Mainstream Media.
Israel never intended for Palestinians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, "We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [edit: the historical examples being the "Apartheid dependencies," of the "Bantustan"] ... and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines ... The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term ... Jerusalem (would be) united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty ... will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev. We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth."
All the questionable clauses, eluding reality by use of the typical vague political doublespeak, have been highlighted.
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control. What that would have meant, we see today. Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city.
Notice how Rabin, commonly held as a dove in politics, never used the term "full sovereign state" when he referred to this "Palestine", but the term "less than a state." Did you spot the use of [Israel's] "natural growth"? Critical question... Where to? Where would Israelis/Zionists "naturally grow" to, if there were equal neighbours, as a balanced power, which could actually stop any such Zionist settler "growth". The Jordan Valley, extends BOTH sides of the Jordan River. Now, I'm sure that was just another slip-up too, of people who don't understand simple geography. Whatever. It is fairly clear what they wanted, and there are historical examples for this: the "pool of cheap labor" within the own borders, as the concept of the "Bantustan" was for the RSA, given a little bit of "independence" to manage some of the own affairs, but de facto/de jure powerless to stop the CONTROLLING power, intended to be Jerusalem, as Jweish capital city with the right to introduce permit laws, etc. It is literally what RSA did with their "Bantustans". Back then the people could not be fooled. They saw through the deceit, and rightfully called it out for what it was: just another Apartheid ploy to avoid the rise of political equals.
Sad reality? Today masses of fools are being mislead into praising Israel's attempted implementation of Apartheid as an attempt at peace, while at the same time denouncing a similar scheme actually implemented by the RSA in stages after WW2, as being bigoted/racist.
3
-
Very simply answered:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy.
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
Don't be a sheep.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Snowflake comment.
Hasan is right.
Stop the emotional arguments....
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Let’s look at specific countries, and US meddling in THEIR world, shall we?
No more "fluffy emotions"....deal?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial ruin...
Quote: "The work puts the economic cost of the offensive into its historical context by describing the strategic air offensive and its intellectual underpinnings. Following this preliminary step, the economic costs are described and quantified across a range of activities using accrual accounting methods. The areas of activity examined include the expansion of the aircraft industry, the cost of individual aircraft types, the cost of constructing airfields, the manufacture and delivery of armaments, petrol and oil, and the recruitment, training and maintenance of the necessary manpower. The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note here, that waaaaaay before Hitler, and loooong before "nasty Wilhelm", it was also British leaders who chose to make every single German citizen the enemy in case of war. Not the other way around.
See my top comment concerning London's Policy of Balance of Power.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
History might not always be 100% the same, but it certainly rhymes.
In the late-19th Century, France fought back against the German attempts to isolate it politically, by cordoning off Germany and the Central Powers with a ring of alliance partners.
France, in the west, a hostile Russia (as the "dissed girlfriend") in the east.
GB's RN in the position to cut off the north, in case of war. That only left a small corridor of access either through Serbia, or Austria-Hungary's ports in the Adriatic (threatened by British hegemony over Greece).
Today, we see a similar strategy concerning China.
Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines controlling sea access to the east. Trump playing it nice with Putin/Russia [yup, "collusion" in some form or other is real. Geopolitics almost dictates it to be true], would cut off the north-west/north-east. A more hostile India, will cover the south-west sector...almost there.
That only leaves a narrow corridor of access to the south, in the South China Sea. The Sprattly Islands...
Let's see if the effects are going to be the same...
3
-
3
-
The "paygrade brigade" rules with the lightest hand.
The statement to "govern with the lightest possible hand" (H.W. Crocker) as "indirect rule", is divide and rule/conquer.
"Lightest possible governing" when it is profitable (one tier), and "benign neglect" if it is potentially favorable (another tier).
The intention of "divide and rule" is not to facilitate unrests or wars, but in order to skim off the highest possible yield, with the lowest possible own imput. Those who "rule" with "light hands" amplify differences, or innocently state there is nothing they can do to try and even out diffences, thereby setting up those in the "cabooses" of the trains against each other, or employ such lower paygrades as "stokers" for the locomotives...
The actions are revealed by the events, not words.
"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." - Warren Buffett
Buffett and his class "divide" the people into "paygrade classes" (trust funds) and "the rest"...
He is not only not using "words", he is also not explaining concepts by ignoring the elephant in the room.
They don't state HOW they implement it.
Of course, it isn't his fault, he is just "surfing".
The creation of pyramical structures, within other pyramidical structures, all striving to go up up up up in a giant pyramical structure with an "eye" at the very top to ensure it stays pyramical in shape for all time, as the little pyramids below elbow, push and spit (so-called "meritocracy").
For an exchange between the "paygrade brigade" pushing for war, and a "voice of reason" (Scott Ritter) in the "caboose", search for "Bid. en Mocks Mar. ine Who Exp. osed Government Mis. take" on You Tube.
Then look at the eyes as the tutoring takes place, and turn the sound off, and see how a nation drifts to a war which would kill and maim millions, displace millions more, and funnel trillions into the coffers of those exact same "paygrade brigades".
It is obviously an uneven playing field: the checks and balances, have turned into "cheques and balance sheets" a long time ago.
Or simply search for George "money beats peace...errr...err...sometimes" Bush...
Note how such elites will gladly tell us what is happening, from a "favorite perspective" (also "favoratism"), but that they never tell us HOW they do it.
Some in this "paygrade brigade" say they want peace, while some in this "paygrade brigade" will push for war at the same time, and those who push for war, will point at those who wish for peaceful solutions, to tell you what great people they are...
Notice always that it doesn't really matter what any advocate says, because everything that is said will set people up against each other, in the biggest pyramid of them all: the divide and rule/conquer world, where the rules they preach don't count...
Their only concern is how to "rule" your thoughts.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@gasmonkey1000
Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works.
They "played games" with the continent, and "reaped" a stupid prize: The end of the Empire.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world as equals...
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised. "Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Keeping Germany as "down" as possible, and keeping Russia as "out" of any comprehensive European solution as possible, for mutually agreed upon comprehensive security agreements is a recurring issue in European systems interacting. It mainly turned out as very beneficial for outside powers, especially the USA.
Not only logically, but also statistically, should Western continental Europe and Eastern continental Europe ever unite, with shared good relations to China, it would overpower the USA as world hegemon. Basically, keeping Central European "brains" (innovation and technology) and Russian "muscle" (manpower, strategic location, plus raw materials) apart, has a long history which spanned two empires. The British Empire before World War 2, as stated in Mackinder's Pivot of History (1904) and the new American Century after 1945.
It started a long time ago, with the British Empire setting out to avoid more unity, and breaking up the Three Kaiser League as a stated goal. "Disraeli also achieved a hidden objective. Beaconsfield revealed to Henry Drummond Wolff that the British mission to the Congress of Berlin had two major objectives. Next to making a tolerable settlement for the Porte, *our great object was to break up, and permanently prevent, the alliance of the three Empires, and I maintain there never was a general diplomatic result
more completely effected. Of course, it does not appear on the protocols; it was realised by personal influence alone, both on Andrassy [the Austrian representative] and Bismarck. The members of the Three Emperors' League were Austria, Germany, and Russia. The Congress of Berlin drove a wedge between Russia and the other two members. Germany formed the Dual Alliance with Austria in 1879 to protect one another from possible Russian aggression. The treaty remained in effect even after Russia requested a renewal
of the Three Emperors' League in 1881. "The Dreikaiserbund [Three Emperors' League] never did recover from the Eastern crisis while Disraeli was in office, and its later revival after Gladstone put *Beaconsfieldism' into reverse took a different and less stable form." from THE FOURTH PARTY AND CONSERVATIVE EVOLUTION, 1880-1885 by KEITH RICHMON OWEN, B.A., M.A. A DISSERTATION IN HISTORY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in August, 2000 (p.25)
Therefore, speaking about the post-2000 attempt of keeping Russia "out" of Europe, by encroaching on it with NATO expansion might well not be a "mistake" as stated by David T. Pyne, but a geopolitical strategy, and it has a long history.
It it were a mere "mistake", it would be amazingly recurring:
- attempts to break up the Three Kaiser League (by London)
- attempts to break up Treaty of Bjorko (by London)
- Versailles (Limitrophe States as a barrier in Eurasia, by London in conjunction with Washington DC)
- The quasi "declaration" of the Cold War (Churchill/Akron University)
- Truman Doctrine (by Washington DC)
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the (Washington DC) administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]" Or as the old insider joke went: NATO's function was "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out." (Lord Ismay)
Whether these are real "mistakes" (sic.) or a concerted strategy lurks behind as ulterior motive, remains hidden.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please :-)
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels, and any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain, simply needed to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. Once "divided", there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Some examples regarding the theory in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors would offer a foothold in Europe.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have such consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement after 1895, amongst other less "valuable" suitors, was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below). The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises made"...lol
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...lol.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics sterted with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947. It is alive and well. It has surrounded every aspect of power politics on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states (for example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's five-year plans is not "cognitive dissonance", but strategy) carry through to today.
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else, while "eating popcorn and chips"...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
AI fan Yes, that is correct.
There in no single "libertarian" agenda or school, but rather a large variety of different opinions and ideas.
However, one of the core principles of libertarianism is the view that "free markets" somehow regulate themselves, with a minimum of regulation or restrictions.
Unfortunately, that goes beyond what history has taught us to be true...which is that IF some things are not illegal (but merely immoral) then we WILL get greedy people who do immoral things (like this doctor under discussion)..
Unfortunately, almost every single law and regulation in place today, is the RESULT (causality) of previous immoral behaviour.
If all humans were simply moral and decent, we would need no rules or regulations.
Sadly, those few humans who have no moral standards, ruin it for the rest of us.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"The bombing of Plzeň in what was then Czechoslovakia. The official history stated that the Skoda works in Pilsen "received 500 well-placed tons", and that "because of a warning sent out ahead of time the workers were able to escape, except for five persons. "The Americans received a rapturous welcome when they liberated the city. Zinn wrote: I recalled flying on that mission, too, as deputy lead bombardier, and that we did not aim specifically at the 'Skoda works' (which I would have noted, because it was the one target in Czechoslovakia I had read about) but dropped our bombs, without much precision, on the city of Pilsen. Two Czech citizens who lived in Pilsen at the time told me, recently, that several hundred people were killed in that raid (that is, Czechs)—not five."
Copied from the Film Archives Channel (YouTube)
After World War II, Zinn attended New York University on the GI Bill, graduating with a B.A. in 1951. At Columbia University, he earned an M.A. (1952) and a Ph.D. in history with a minor in political science (1958).
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." Henry Kissinger
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bolivar2153 I always condemn any form of "waging war on civilians" incl. the use of Zeppelins and Gothas.
Because my standpoint is (always) that of the civilian suffering. I don't care about language, ethnicity, religion, someone's "empire dreams", or any other criteria.
I don't make exceptions.
That's all.
Any sympathy for the Danes, Japanese and Chinese , and hundreds of others, your Empire bombarded, starved, threw into concentration camps, mowed down (while desperately trying to defended their homelands) throughout history to gain control/dominance, spheres of influence, and markets?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@the_famous_reply_guy In the study of conflict resulting out of the migration of large cultural groups, usually as part of agendas or expansion.
What is presently happening, as a part of a wider conflict going back at least 100 years, is the immigration of a superior culture of lighter skin-colored cultural ingroup, injected onto a darker skin-colored cultural outgroup.
The favored ingroup coming from outside (people born elsewhere) received land, livestock, and a home of sorts, all based on the advantage of having "friends in the right places", and having more resources at hand for the own aims and goals. In return, they become what the USA did during their own expansion into North America, the "farms/forts", which if "shot at" would always be "just defended", or "shooting back" (see below essays for more examples of this strategy or "101 playbook of imperialism" for expansion of the own systems).
The "settler colonist" (system) is the TOOL of expansion.
While the existing population was squeezed out of strategically vital areas one step at a time (arable farmland, for example, or sources of water), the faraway controlling political movement sought widespread support from whoever would give it, specifically from very imperialistic indoctrinated "friendly systems", for the own expansive goals. Real or at least tacid support for the "own -ism" is bought from large organisation, like the UN for example.
People who came with the well-wishing of large portions of the "ingroup"-supporters ("-isms"), or at least indifferent/ignorant of the real issues and therefore largely complacent, created a culture of "settler colonialism", creating a "storyline" that if such a settler colonist is attacked in any way, that they will be "just defending themselves". The original imperialist expansion (industrial/financial/argricultural/mining/raw materials/ideological, etc.), of "settler colonialism" being the cause of conflict, is simply never questioned at all...
Of course, one does not need a cristal ball, or be a Nostradumbass in order to predict that conflict was bound to take place, in view of previously unfolding similar series of historical events, in other places in the world, where people with an "-ism", emboldened by a feeling of cultural superiority, following a prescibed set of steps as strategy, in order to gain a superior political/economic position for the own "tribe" (tribalism).
When one studies the various perspectives about human conflict, one can't help wondering who is most to blame.
Is it:
1) the various enablers and deciders as executive powers? (leaderships)
2) those who saw financial opportunities to exploit, specifically in case troubles/strife ensued? (opportunists)
3) those who wished to proliferate themselves, advance personal carriers, or similar free-riders, but otherwise had no real POWER as executives? (political expediency of choosing sides)
4) the huddled masses without land, who decided to take the lifeline thrown at them, despite knowing that they were imposing on another already existing indigenous population? (chosen ingroup)
5) the indigenous population, mostly equaly "huddled masses" just trying to eke out a living, but who were never asked what they wanted for themselves as collective? (chosen outgroup)
6) any other, or a different order, since this is an open question
It should not be too difficult to conclude that responsibility for the resulting conflict goes pretty much in the order of 1 to 5, with those mostly responsible being the few "deciders" (as 1). These should not only have been in the position to foresee trouble ahead, but also to acknowledge these foreseeable events, and then search alternatives.
Only...
...the unfolding series of events did not take place in the Middle East, and did not involve London, the British Empire, France, or any other western power.
The conflict mentioned in the first paragraphs, has been taking place with gathering momentum over the past 100 years, is taking place in Irian Jaya (Indonesia) of course.
I hope nobody concluded is was about some other place somewhere else in the world...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_conflict
The "strategic encroachment" as part of such "outgroup"-agendas must be searched for...
"During the late 20th century Indonesia resettled 300,000 farmers to the restive province of West Papua, transforming its demographic composition. Such resettlement, or ‘transmigration’, was quite limited until the mid-1980s and restricted to only certain areas of West Papua. What accounts for the incidence of transmigration? Using a panel of all transmigration, ethnic cleansing and demographic change data in each regency of West Papua during 1964-2000 compiled from confidential government sources, I show that, after an aborted Papuan uprising in 1984, Indonesia cleansed and settled its border with Papua New Guinea to forestall cross-border insurgent activity. I then show that after the Grasberg gold mine was opened in 1990 Indonesia cleansed and settled the area around the mine." from the introduction of "Indonesian Settler Colonialism in West Papua", 10 Jun 2020, Lachlan McNamee, University of California, Los Angeles
According to the "NIMBY"-principle, most people actually do not care much about unfolding events far away, so are most likely completely unaware that there even is a simmering conflict somewhere else. According to "NIMBY" however, should the shoe be on the other foot, and the own existence becomes "encroached upon" by an outside migrating group (immigrants/refugees), all of similar background, it doesn't take long for the observed "unease" to begin. Firstly, in the form of lots of moaning and groaning, then if no political action changing the course of events results, the "steps" gradually increase in the level of violence exerted. Firstly there would be randomly organized protests, then larger forms of civil unrest, more property damage, more arson, the first deaths, and so on, and so on, until there is a large scale revolution. Any wise political leadership will always head off such series of unfolding events, but there must be a recognition that action is called for. If not, the series of events always follow predictable patterns, regardless of the tier of events, the cultural background of those involved, the gods these people pray to, the ideology, or the language spoken.
rgds
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The time is approaching.
For 50 years after 1945 the citizens of the USA have lived the "good life" at the expense of the rest of the world in the immediate post-WW2 years, when the rest of the planet was so weak it could not avoid US institutions/military/NGOs from imposing themselves, and vacuuming off enormous gain from a position of unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL invincibility...
Now, that ratio is down to 30% of the world's wealth.
It's decreasing...
What does the USA look like today? What will it look like when this amount of wealth of the world reaches 20%, or then 10%? When US citizens finally get closer to a "fair share" of the world's resources/wealth, and have to make do with the same amounts as everybody else, they will finally find out what level of psychopathy they have systemically enabled inside, operating from within their OWN country/state. When they can no longer vacuum off the wealth of the world, in an unfair manner (50% for us, the 6% of the planet), they will start finding out what human nature is like.
When the current 4% of the planet, have to make do with 4-5% of the world's wealth and resources as other nations come and take a fairer share of these resources for themselves, the USA will become everything they have always criticized, and finally discover they are just like everybody else.
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
Ruth Bader-Ginsburg: "To Those Accustomed to Privilege Equality feels like Oppression".
In the coming years, Americans are going to start feel soooooo "oppressed" and feel the urge to fight back against "all those jelis peepil" (🤣😂) the 95% of the planet, who somehow had to manage with the other 50% of the wealth/resources for the fifty or sixty years after World War II.
America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this desirable disparity continues.
Set up "patterns" of European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
CONTROL the access to its own POWER.
Keep others either "down" or "out" per "rulings".
No, that isn't a "conspiracy theory".
It is "divide and rule", in different contexts, on different tiers, and in different eras of history.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
CONTROL the resources, which are the limiting factor (NOT "money" which is simply a "means" to divide)
Find volunteers and local ambitious rulers who collaborate, who "dance for money", and the sky is the limit for the dividers...
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) as the template.
The strategy to avoid unity in Eurasia, or to avoid "avoid war" (note: double negative), has been the same for the past 200 years.
Welcome to your tool/fool status, minion...
3
-
When the video showed up it clearly showed 3 shots fired (instead of the 2 reported in the police report) and a case for harassment i.e. chased down with a truck, admitting to multiple attempts to cut him off on a public road, setting up a "roadblock", threatening behaviour like standing on the back of a truck, holding firearms, etc.
Harassment.
Definition:
"Generally, criminal harassment entails intentionally targeting someone else with behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize them. Not all petty annoyances constitute harassment. Instead, most state laws require that the behavior cause a credible threat to the person's safety or their family's safety."
And to think how easy it would have been to simply follow at a safe distance, until the real police showed up...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The story of how the Brits lost their Empire...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...
3
-
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
A "blow" that came back to them after WW2, in the form of "blowback"...
Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickegruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@BoffinGrusky Correct.
French leaders were dumb as a pile of bricks concerning geopolitics and geostrategy.
...because after the "won" WW1, it was the USA and GB which divided the "rule of the world" amongst themselves.
According to Mahan, those who rule the oceans, rule the world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan
France finished WW1 with a mighty army, but was not granted the "rule" of the World Island with this army (see Heartland Theory).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
Unattainable for the French economy anyway, since according to one historian France had a "giant appetite, but had rotten teeth" (meaning that the willpower of their elites to rule and dominate was not matched by the economy or political landscape which was a shambles after WW1).
In other words, London had the "leverage" to control the destiny of the French Empire (naval power), but in return France did not have the leverage to control the destiny of the British Empire (land forces).
A bad deal, in my books...
France relinquished it's position as a first class naval power in return for "a deal" to dominate or share a few regions (Balkans, ME , Central Europe), but not the geostrategically vital Heartland (aka the "pivot" of Eurasia from which the destruction/dismantling of the British Empire by land forces was possible).
According to London, if London could not rule this herself, or by proxy, it would be divided or "balanced " amongst several rivals.
France allied herself to another power which could simply hop across the channel if a war didn't turn out as expected...
3
-
@taylorlibby7642 As far as "poor Belgians" as Casus Belli for GB and the Empire....
First off: "poor Belgians" was an emotional argument, same as "WMDs" and "Saddam Hussein involved in 9/11" back in 2003....and its always the same people who are going to be fooled by it. The young, and the ignorant.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
Belgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB, and could have stated their conditions for British neutrality (for example, but not limited to: no German navy actions in the Channel, no occupation of French Channel ports, respect of neutrality declarations, no expansion of the war to the colonies, respect of freedom of the seas, etc.)
In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
According to historians, the British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war", in other words, Belgium was Casus Belli.
Correct?
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". In other words, no invasion, no Casus Belli...
Also correct?
Berlin therefore approached London, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
Belgium was a so-called geostrategic barrier to ensure the Policy of Balance of Power, and protect the British Empire. GB fought WW1 for own interests, not the "safety of others" or any other emotional argument.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even as late as 2014, about one in every 3 adult British polled still dreamt of the days of "ruling the world".
There were still some 15 million citizens in the UK who woke up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
Today, accompanied by the sounds of toppling statues, this is hopefully a decreasing number, accompanied by a surge of those who finally find their own destiny in Europe...
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had the global influence of the Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
3
-
3
-
3
-
ASIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside powers can "surf in and skim off the profits". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS
European peoples are to daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that that end up thinking everything they do is justified, with "only a few exceptions"...
Has your nation, or your leader been "chosen as a favorite son of the West"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have with neighbors aside, or settle them fast, and don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme. Actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU today, for the gain of the outside Western Powers, just like divide and rule sacrificed your grandparents and previous Asian generations during the Era of Imperialism...
------------------------
P.S.: I cannot personally post this message myself too often, since YT autoblocks it as "spam" if I copy and paste it under videos too often. I need YOUR help. In your own interest of safety, please spread this message with regards to the age-old "divide and rule"-strategy of outside (non-Asian) powers. TY
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"You will own nothing and be happy."
First, they came for the mom and pop stores, but we had Amazon & cie., and did not care.
Then, they came for the farmers, but we did not care for we had Walmart shelves packed to the brim...
Finally, the corporations came for your house, and there was nobody left to speak for you.
How convenient if family-led businesses and farms all over go bankrupt. The corporations can swarm in, get the land cheaply, and feast on the dividends of renting the property back to the original owners.
In the end, you will own nothing, but you won't be happy.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"When two neighbouring countries fight each other, just know the USA visited one." - Nelson Mandela (Region: Southern Africa/Big picture timestamp: Cold War).
The statement is not quite correct.
When two neighbours fight each other, just know that an empire has been there previously.
It's the old joke that "If two fish are fighting, the British Empire has been there."
It is a truism about imperialism in general, and how divide-and-rule works.
Set up neighbours against each other, using a variety of ever-consistent techniques and strategies. With absolute certainty, the tribal leaders of Europe joked the same way about the Roman Empire, openly flaunting their "Pax Romana" whilst in the background covertly favoring one "neighbor", whilst setting them up against the others, using whatever reasoning it wanted.
Outsiders will come to a state (also covertly politically or via NGOs as the strategy of "cultural- and political capture"), and these outsiders try to lay down the foundation for division by setting up the "new-found friend" against its neighbours and if it is unsuccessful in one "state" (status quo), it will simply go to the neighbours and try the same. The more neighbours, the more chances of a successful division of powers, which is beneficial to the "divider". Because if these neighbours all end up fighting, the "divider" vacuums off gains (of various kinds) in the background. Such implemented and leveraged divisions do not necessarily stem from evil intent, since most of the participants in a divide-and-rule strategy have absolutely no idea that they have become "actors" in a great game, the scope of which they remain ignorant of. Even those with good intentions (political doves) can create division.
No amount of agreements, accords, negotiation or skills will ever stop the "dividers", for nothing they sign will stop their divisive ways.
Any resources-rich region of the planet like the Ukraine or West Asia, where the interests run deep, is a perfect example of the above, which is globally practiced today. The only thing which changed between the Roman Empire and the current times is technology, which vastly shrunk the world and the REACH of the controlling empire.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Mithadon So true.
Most Americans are not aware of history.
They "don't know and don't care" that it was the west, and after 1950 mostly the USA which has caused the current sh*tstorm in the ME, because of the desire to rule (directly or indirectly via puppets) over the strategic value (geostrategy) and resources.....oil. Nuff said.
Because 90% of Americans are clueless, they fall for emotional snowflake arguments.
Truth is, the USS is responsible, and their elites know it.
The elites also know that 90% of Americans are clueless emotional individuals, easily swayed by emotional arguments...
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster [quoted from globalresearch.ca]
The start of US meddling in THEIR world...
3
-
Most of our history is too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture.
After around 1900, Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, ALL Europeans lost.
WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and Great Britain off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted.
WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that the naval powers (GB and the USA) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination (see footnote).
In the end ALL Europeans lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans.
After the Cold War this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards. The new "Iron Curtain" which soon be declared, under some or other fancy term.
Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain.
-------------
Footnote:
My sincere thanks to a fellow youtuber (@realvipul) who thought my one of essays explaining the divide-and-rule/conquer strategy of power was "TLDR" or too complicated and therefore ran it through AI...
"The comment discusses the concept of "divide and rule" as a strategy employed by powerful entities to maintain control. It argues that human systems are inherently chaotic due to the complexity of human nature, making them susceptible to manipulation through division. The example of the Roman Empire's conquest of Britain around the year "0" is used to illustrate how this strategy works, emphasizing that the motivations of individual collaborators are less important than the overall effect of division in enabling the empire's dominance. The comment then extends this analysis to the American Century, suggesting that the same strategy was used to exert influence over Europe. It highlights that the goal is to create maximum division among opposing groups while maintaining unity within the ruling power. The comment criticizes the media and political leaders for perpetuating a cycle of lies and wars, often under the guise of opposing territorial expansion while simultaneously promoting systemic expansion. In essence, the comment argues that the "divide and rule" strategy is a fundamental tactic employed by powerful entities to maintain control, and that understanding this strategy is crucial for comprehending historical events and current geopolitical dynamics."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
A bit off topic, but the often stated "naval arms race" being a cause for WW1 is a misconception. Historians pin their flag on the date "1906", saying that here is where that "history" started.
Actually, the naval arms race started in 1871, with an unsuccessful attempted blockade of northern German ports during the Franco-Prussian War by the French navy.
The "cause" was therefore the intention of German leaders to protect German citizens from the threat of blockade. Blockading an enemy, was one of the favorite means of economic warfare at the time. It therefore "started" with a German-French naval arms race, and expanded to a German - French/Russian arms race after France and Russia formed an alliance (Entente Cordial).
It was the British policy for the continent called "Balance of Power" which escalated tensions. By default, the policy practically dictated that the continent's most powerful state/alliance would be "the enemy in war". This was determined by British politicians, in London, and nobody else can be blamed for this attitude, but British policy makers.
German leaders therefore countered that, on the foundation of facts, which meant that "by default" (until the policy of Balance of Power changed) they were "the enemy" in the minds of British leaders
When GB joined Russia and France, creating the Tripple Entente, this "naval arms race" was already in full swing. Obviously, German leaders then had to protect German ports from a potential blockade of THREE navies. British, Russian, and French.
In other words, the German naval re-armament was an "effect" of previous actions (causality). Not a "cause" but an "effect" of previous events. The German leaders reacted to a potential threat (blockade).
A confusion of "cause and effect", by simply pinning a "starting date" randomly on a timeline. "History" is being "sold" to us the wrong way, and it is easy to confuse people.
Also, study the design parameters of the German ships built up to WW1. Note that they were close range, coast defence vessels without any global reach.
(Google the difference between a "Blue Water Navy" and "Coast Defence i.e. "Brown--" or "Green Water Navies")
The threat to the RN and the British Empire was the typical fear mongering by arms manufacturers, vying for funds for their particular industry.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
A systemic analysis looks for the ROOT CAUSES of problems, then combatting these root causes in order to dry out the effects.
Suggestion: Stop the eternal exploitation of Africa and West Asia, where 90% of all migrants to Europe stem from.
-------
AVOID THE EQUILLIBRIUM
That is the sole aim of the "affairs of the city" which is per definition the system of politics.
Divide and conquer works because not everyone involved knows that they are taking on a role in a power game. That's how the strategy works. Very few people really need to understand it. In English, the principle is called "Useful Innocent/Useful Idiot." From a position of power, you can animate people (usually through money, or ideology) who play a role, but they know not what they do.
The peoples in your "neck o' the woods," have been ruled by division since the beginning.
Because it's easier to divide people based on personal differences than to unite them based on their similarities. Strategically ambivalent elites use this to their own advantage. Now the intention is simply to avoid the unity in your society, in order to "rule" over the dissenters, which is the classic "divide and conquer" principle. This strategy is kept under wraps, due to a systemic desire to be "good", and on the "right side of history", and therefore overemphasizing the actions of philanthropists, political doves, peace activists, religious leaders, etc.
At the same time the activities of political hawks sowing divisions are downplayed, relativized, apologized for, mostly by politicians and strategists as the "story tellers" of history. But also by commoners, who simply parrot the stories without thinking them through, and who are NOT privy to the overall strategy (divide-and-rule in all its intricacies and nuances).
The main interest of these people for which we have been fighting wars for centuries has been the relationships between organized systems of finance and power, and systems of resources and manpower. Because united they are the only power that could threaten this group. They must make sure that the unity of others does not happen. ... For these elites ... the greatest fear is an overall creation of a unity of technology, capital and natural resources, and labor, as the only combination that has frightened the elites for centuries. So how does this play out? Well, they have already put their cards on the tilted table. They draw their invisible lines onto society.
Today all our so-called "leaders" are too weak to create systemic unity, to avoid their "friends" simply drawing lines all over the place, which they cower down to and must obey. Endless wars, constant disagreements, using imperialism to stay on top. Using "levers" of lies and distrust, via power players. Creating favorites: favoring the proxies who bow down and sacrifice themselves for the mastah. Pointing fingers, everywhere else, using the POWER of the mainstream media (footnote).
Divide-and-rule/conquer.
The oldest trick in the book...
Who has the POWER? Who has always had the GEOPOSITIONAL advantage of power to rule? The GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all other "buck catchers" (tools and other instruments of POWER in the Roman era style), but could not be reached themselves at any point in a historical timeline due to a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic- or political advantage?
“Divide-and-rule/conquer” as a standard strategy of power and thus the cause of nearly all conflicts in the world connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Different terms. Different eras. Same games...
The opposition that wants unity and equillibrium in a region is the "bad guy" (Black Legend concept).
》》》》》
Footnote:
Giant spinning/framing machine = MIMAC = cyclic dynamical systems of power
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
THE FULL CIRCLE
Regarding any criticism today, about "Germany not doing more" to "stop Russia", for example the hesitation to deliver Leopard II MBT's against Russian objections, which could force Russia into a (own perspective): humiliating retreat from the Ukraine."
Why should they?
The "deceivers and manipulators" in the background had already schemed for it before, and Berlin had fallen into the trap of "doing more than the alpha" and "doing more than everybody else" before.
Why should they fall for it again and again?
Re. the long-standing habit Berlin had to "force Russia to withdraw in humiliation", by not strengthening the Russian position of more expansion for the benefit of Russia:
A prophecy by an old Russian general from the memiors of Wilhelm II: "It's that nasty congress of Berlin. A serious mistake by the Chancellor (edit: Bismarck the "honest broker" had stepped forward to avoid a war between Russia and Great britian, the alpha at the time). It has destroyed the old friendship between us, planted distrust in the hearts of Court and Government, and furnished a sense of grave wrong[Pg 17] done to the Russian army after its bloody campaign of 1877, for whom she wants her revenge. And here we are together with this accursed French Republic, full of hatred against you and filled with subversive ideas, which in the event of war with you, will cost us our dynasty."[1]
Re. "prophecies", how right he was.
Critical question re. the Ukraine today: Why should Germany step forward, and do more than the self-proclaimed alpha Washington DC, or any other state?
(Strategy: setting up the "fall guy", to "throw under the bus").
Conclusion:
Not for the first time in history, the actions of a German leader would result in Russia forced to "withdraw in humiliation": The first time had been Bismarck, whose "just honest broker"-intentions were misused by outside powers (British "saber rattling" and "war scare") to achieve exactly the same effect.
A rift between Russia and Germany.
Crises or wars...same effect.
Create an eternal rift between Russia and Germany...
War.
The Ukraine, 2022.
A great way to "make the megabucks" (see the Rand Report of 2019) while creating a rift between Germany (and other European states) and Russia...
The "keep Germany down and Russia out"-crowd had been at it before.
As early as 1878/1879 (San Stefano).
Lord Ismay was not stating a conclusion based on recent history when NATO was formed, stating the reason why NATO was necessary for defence, but was actually hinting at what had been a long-term London policy standpoint.
Keep Germany as "down" as possible, and Russia as "out" as possible, for ALL time...
That was the "recipe of success" of the ones who wanted to rule ze world.
Divide Europeans.
Create division.
Stick the dagger of dissent in the "heart" of the Heartland, and avoid any kind of unity.
The only thing that unfortunately changed for the scheming London lords orchestrating the setup, was the alpha...
Lord Ismay: "NATO's intention is to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out."
"To establish any mode to abolish war, however advantageous it might be to nations, would be to take from such government the most lucrative of its branches." - Thomas Paine
That was not only true when he stated it.
The revolving door between industry and government (or as Eisenhower said the Military Industrial Complex), will keep on sending...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join up...
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
3
-
History repeats itself in eternal cycles.
Bismarck's "something silly in the Balkans" has morphed into "something silly in the Ukraine".
Of course, Bismarck's quote is in reference to the age-old "contested sphere of influence", and big power ambitions.
At the time it was the Balkans.
Today it is the Black Sea/Ukraine, or simply "shifted east Balkans"-Bismarkian logic.
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
Of course the Ottoman Empire was not Europe's only "sick man" at the time.
The Ottoman Empire was weak, and therefore a favorite on "the European good guys" with their "shopping lists"-mentality.
Of course, the "always on the right side of history"-good guys have one main goal: "carving up" weakness.
That goal is eternal, always searching for weakness.
Of course in the late 19th-century, the Ottomans weren't the only failing empire, desperately trying to hold together their own past accomplishments (previously gained by a mixture of blood and diplomacy).
There were two others.
Of course Spain was the first weak empire on the American Internationalist's own "no more Monroe Doctrine restrictions"-shopping list of suitable weak empires.
The American Century needed divided "weany libruls" to succeed in their quest.
Easily explained empire 101...
Europe's other "sick man" was Austria-Hungary, and Berlin adamantly refused to throw her to the wolves.
Bad bad Berlin ...the "good guys" had an appetite and came with a vengeance.
Dissed girlfriend Russia of course intented to encircle Austria-Hungary, using the "poor people"-argument (aka "Pan Slavism").
And in the respect of "losing favored status" in the good guys' with their eternal games of divide and rule (favoratism):
Russia today.
Not such fun getting encroached upon, as Russia once did to "sick man" Austria-Hungary, and having own security issues ignored by the eternal good guys, right?
Not so great having historical spheres of influence carved up by "ICEBREAKER NATO" paving the way to new profitable EU/PNAC markets, eh?
Shouting "poor me" in "the game" of default good guys/default bad guys, when own interests to dominate and rule over others, using human lives as "tools" not working out anymore?
Why don't your leaders roll out the old "protector of all slavs"-trope again, hmmmm?
Suddenly "Russian power" as a "tool" don't suite the "good guys" anymore, and the own Moscow interests ("security issues": remember that term for a while) get thrown out the back door.
Not so much fun anymore when you are "in the shoes" of others, right?
What happened to those eternal dreams of access to the Med for your navy and the own projection of power (Mahan)? Today Russia doesn't even fully control the Black Sea anymore, and St Petersburg/Moscow geostategic goals/aims have been thrown back over the last 30 years, step by step, back 200 years to the 18th century when it all started.
Not such fun if one isn't on the "default good guy list" anymore...
Today, Moscow's dream of "top down influence in Turkey" (Erdogan/Turkish state access to the Med, janking Turkey out of NATO) is being countered by western economical warfare on the Turkish state. Watch on while the next bloody "bottom up" orange revolution is being set up by "the good guys" with the cash, creating the next "poor people"-argument for the primed/conditioned masses back home in front of their TVs...impervious in regards to "what happened". They just want the feelgood story, so too bad...
Back to "good ol' days" when Imperialist Russia was still "best fwiends":
Of course during the "good ol' days" of "friendly entente Russia", St. Petersburg/Russia could appease Belgrade in their quest of destabilising their neighboring state (Austria-Hungary) in their violent nationalist quest for Nacertanije and carving up Austria-Hungary. St Petersburg could try to misuse known Serb ambitions for Greater Serbia (openly known since 1906) for the own goal of destabilising the Balkans for own geopolitical goals (access to the Med via the Dardanelles), as the "entente good guys" turned a blind eye. Being a "good guy" herself, Russia could set out to misuse Serbs as a "human wall" in lieu of overly obvious direct state influence, to stop a potential alliance between Berlin and the Ottoman Empire becoming viable. The "usefull tool" aka "Entente partner" St Petersburg had the tacid permission and could appease Belgrade and convert the previous Austrian-Hungarian sphere of influence (Serbia) into a "tool" to create a security issue for Austria-Hungary (potential two-front war danger for Vienna/Budapest).
Note how the "good guys" create "poor people"-arguments directed at Moscow today, the same way that the predecessor St. Petersburg created "poor people"-arguments against the object of their desire...Austria-Hungary.
The "regular run" of history is of course that "poor slavs" trapped in an Imperialist Russia (conquered, brutalized and oppressed) is perfectly OK, but Serbs trapped in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire just screams for a "historical adjustment". Go figure...
Anyway.
What happened to these "party times" when the good guys told you you could do no harm?
Doesn't everybody just love becoming encroached upon and encircled?
Let's ask Russians today how they feel about "encroachment/encirclement".
Not so nice, eh?
(Google "hypocrisy")
The same "security issues" St Petersburg once created for Austria-Hungary, suddenly don't sound so "cool" anymore, when the shoe is on the other foot.
Biblical history (and 2,000-year old observations re. human nature), unfolding again, right in front of our eyes.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Trump is simply another "crying billionaire", sitting on a throne of luxury while trying to rally support, repeating the old trope about "poor exploited us" (DARVO strategy).
Nobody owes the USA anything, and here is why:
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a globalist prototype who implemented disparities per strategy. This is not simply a piece of anecdotal evidence, taken out of context, but it can be corroborated by millions of bits of data all confirming that for the 50 years or so after WW2, the USA was the wealthiest country in the world. It was not coincidental, or a matter of working harder than anybody else, or having better people or anything else but a favorable geographical location on the map, meaning it lost less during WW2 than everybody else, and was therefore in the position to exploit this position of power after the war.
Today, the citizens of the USA and the collective West have no-one else to blame than their own "billionaire class" who outsourced jobs for extra profit, and this did not start during the 1990s (neoliberalism), but is a part of the bigger problem. Note, the British Empire already did this during its empire, 200 years ago. Growing raw materials, sending it for processing elsewhere, then all over the globe to its empire's outreaches for the extra profit of a few: the chartered companies thrived and their rich were mega-rich, at the expense of the plebs...
Today this disparity, the effort to avoid an equilibrium, is still kept in place as about 4% of the global population with around 30% of all wealth and resources.
THAT is why so many Americans "feel poor" by comparing themselves to the "good ol' days" when the USA had 50% of the global wealth, with almost nobody questioning whether this was even moral or not.
DARVO, or the billionaire "crying from a position of great comfort" shows how a small elite can write a story by leaving crucial details out, or tuning a timeline, as a means of deceiving any specific target crowd by appeals to their emotions: feelings of being exploited, while one is the actual exploiter of a disparity of power dynamics. The misuse of feelings of fear or anxiety about the future are typical emotions easily exploited for stories like Trump is telling (see the 5 Core Emotions). People entrapped by a belief system. So you think you're cool with that, because the victims were in the past, and the deceived were people far away, or you were not personally in the target group of manipulation or deceit? Think again. You ARE in the target group of even bigger lies and deceit.
No, this is not history. Our so-called leaders are doing it right NOW. You are entrapped by a belief system that is centred on avoiding global equilibrium by telling you a nice story.
"Wealth inequality" is not only at the root of every social problem within a state/nation, but also at the global level, being the root cause of all crisis and wars as "global inequality".
Seneca: "The poor lack much, the greedy everything. The greedy man benefits none and is his own worst enemy. Greed denies to itself what it has taken from everyone else."
Poor crying billionaires, using various techniques to fish for the poor who support them...
3
-
Yes, there is only "history".
As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives".
One perspective should not rank higher than another.
Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable".
The reality?
As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
3
-
3
-
MACHIAVELLIAN PRINCIPLE OF FAIRNESS
One sure-fire way to avoid conflict, is one of the oldest wisdoms/strategies of all: to do onto others, as one wishes to be done onto (not ONLY a moral standpoint, but ALSO a strategy of power to avoid escalation). Of course, per Machiavelli, it is not only a wisdom, but also a strategy of power. Often quoted by imperialists/militarists with agendas as being "Machiavellian" is that "It is better to be feared than loved" which is however a distorted version of the Machiavellian strategy. The same way they lie and distort everything, in order to bend the truth to fit their own world views. Unfortunately, even Machiavelli's writing have become distorted into meaning "It's cool to be an a-hole and brag about it." What Machiavelli actually advised in Chapter XVII was that it is best to be both loved and feared (compromise and deterrence, by being fair). Only when that ideal of "to be loved" is not possible, then to make others "fear" is the way forward. As always, the manipulators, the deceivers, the liars (by omitting half the strategy) will always pretend to expose "truths," whereas what they are doing is actually distorting it. To bear false witness (KNOWingly lie) is a cardinal sin, which results in EFFECTS.
Per Machiavelli: Strategy of "fairness". Do you wish to be encircled, and be encroached upon, and be controlled from outside? Then don't do it to others. Because "fair" is (per Machiavelli) ALSO a strategy of power, and such principles as "putting yourself in the shoes" or "walking a mile in their shoes" are ways to determine a fair principle. The unprincipled have no principles, therefore avoid wasting time on them. Get away from them and let them march into their trenches.
The entire above patterns of rhyming history means wrongdoers will simply always cherry pick their logic, usually by determining the own timeline of events, leaving out data which does not suit the own storyline.
That is why the world needs a global, multi-tiered, legally-based balance of power.
GEOPOSITIONAL ADVANTAGE
Explaining the concept of "an advantage" is simple. The "mommy's basement hero" or the similar "keyboard warrior" is the archetype of an individual arguing from a geopositional advantage. The own standpoint can be richly, proudly, carnivorously (greed) and hectoringly, all loosely quoting Thomas Jefferson, defended from a unique position of being unaffected by the potential EFFECTS of the own standpoint being so vociferously voiced and proclaimed. In other words, as many proverbial expressions state, the advocate will never face or expects never to face, any consequences of the own vociferously claimed "truth". This can of course be quite amusing, if the debater is merely some teen childishly arguing from the safety of his mommy's basement, using every false premise, every cognitive bias, and every fallacy in reasoning imaginable, whilst trumpeting the own "rights", all the while faraway from the events loudly cheered for...
If these are our leaders, then the situation is different. In fact, the repeatedly proclaimed "truths" only means arguing others into a standoff or conflict. These "others" are usually not their own kin, or friends. The intention of the latter is to provoke a reaction to an own unjustified standpoint, then quickly run off into the own safety zone and from there (eating popcorn) "watch others fight". These leaders actually have the clout to implement the actions they proclaim as "correct", unlike the powerless "mommy's basement hero". Both however, stand nothing to lose. Or, so they think. Supporting such "heroes" is the worst strategy in a democracy, since one actually ends up with the worst type of leadership one can imagine: The coward. The manipulator. The weak mind.
A simple question exposes them: Why aren't you there, in the "trenches," defending your OWN standpoint? The place where you can actually stand to lose something?
Then listen/read very carefully.
Of course, this argument cannot be simply thrown back at the originator of the universal principled standpoint, as opposed to the unprincipled standpoint of the "basement hero" as introduced into memes and folklore and as explained above. A principled standpoint means NOT to get into such positions as "the standoff" in the first place. The standoffs as advocated BY these "basement heroes", are the escalation patterns which are recurrent throughout history. Unfortunately our species is evolutionary wired not only to become susceptible to manipulation, deception, lies and half-truths, but also to become the creators of manipulation, deception, lies and half-truths, and evolutionary wired to pass all of this on as "stories" without thinking too much about what they pass on as a "story." Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quite or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
What do all such deceivers and manipulators have in common? The "paragraph thumpers", the "contract distorters", the "treaty prioritizers", and all such "chest thumper"-versions of (his) story?
Correct answer: they try to deflect from one simple reality. They "do unto others" as they will never consider acceptable, if "done unto"...
Find out what they do not care to address, and thereby find out their modus operandi.
3
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The biggest misconception about WW1 is that GB joined in to "save poor Belgians".
[britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power]
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
The Germans, became "the rival/enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
Make the strongest country/alliance the rival, and "balance it out".
Let's simplify it down a little.
A toff walks into a pub in August 1914 and says: "Listen up folks, there's going to be a war on the continent soon. You, you, and you!! Go and volunteer for a muddy trench, some PTSD, and to get your head blown off so we can balance those powers..."
Pub:
[sound of chuckles, followed by slurping ale]
3
-
As they say, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"...
As Robert Kennedy Jr. notes about the history of the ME:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster
The USA absolutely loooooves Jihadists, as long as they don't act against the USA.
Or, that Biblical logic: "the people shall reap what your leaders have sown", or something like that...
3
-
@Bry-Fi It might help not creating these "evil governments" in the first place.
Learn some history.
We entered their world in 1919 after WW1. Imposed borders, installed evil dictators, stole their oil, invaded, political meddling, CIA covert operations, flooded them with immigrants and refugees we didn't want, perpetual war, more war, invasions, interventions, drone strikes...
The Bible said "reap what you sow".
If you love "sowing" hatred so much, don't whine about the "harvest" of violence and terrorism...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@manilajohn0182 Excellent first paragraph. I might borrow it at some point :-)
Yes, and that is excactly what happened after WW2.
London got "screwed over" by her WW2 "best friends", because she no longer had the leverage to impose or insist on agreements once made in war.
Of course, wars are "won" by men in suites, after the last shots have been fired, and the parades to soothe the tormented souls are over.
After the war, that is what counts: Leverage
Agreed about Putin.
In the bigger picture he is a "Wilhelm II" of sorts.
Just like Wilhelmine Germany once refused the requests of the "alpha" (London) to become a tool for an "empire", I assume (without evidence) that Putin refused the USA's requests to become a tool to encircle China.
Of course, it's all about "Chy-naah" and the "bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb, bomb Iran"-wishes of a certain fraction in Washington DC.
That was clear even before Trump turned up, trying to jank "little rocket man" off the Beijing leash...
The historical "narrative" re. Germany/Wilhelm II is dead wrong.
At the time, say the late 1890s, the British Empire approached Berlin, with a request/suggestion for an alliance (see Balfour/Chamberlain).
Of course, such an "alliance" had the main objective of turning Berlin into a temporary "best friend" and "lightning rod" for Russian and French venom, boiling up due to imperialistic differences of the three powers (GB/France/Russia).
Berlin was not that naive.
It wanted to be considered an alliance partner on eye level, with the own risks it would be taking (wedged in between Russia and France) suitably considered in such an "alliance".
It would have meant that London would have to voluntarily step down from its self-appointed role of "balancer of powers/decider of wars", and accept Berlin on the top "rung" of "Empires". Or, imagine an athlete, having to share the top position on the podium...
Of course, by the late 19th century, Berlin had also already become London's "default rival/default enemy in war", as decided per "economy/weight", same as "Chy-naah" starting becoming the new alpha's "default rival/default enemy in war" around the turn of the century (around 2000).
And Putin?
I assume he said "no".
He was no "drunk Jelzin" or "naive Gorbachov".
And so history repeats itself...seemingly.
Of course, I'll have to wait for the "30-year rules" to pass, and the archives opened to the backdoor dealings of our dear leaders.
So at the moment it is just a haunch.
3
-
IDF Intelligence Service report from June 1948 lists 11 factors which precipitated the exodus, listing them in order of importance as:
a. Direct hostile Jewish operations against Arab settlements. (The Haganah was the army of the Yeshuv, or Jewish community in Palestine, and was the precursor of the Israeli Defense Force, or IDF.)
b. The effect of our hostile operations on nearby Arab settlements (especially the fall of large neighboring centers).
c. Operations of the Jewish dissidents (terrorist organisations like Irgun and the Stern Gang, also known as the Irgun Tzvai Leumi, Lehi, etc.).
d. Jewish whispering operations (psy-ops) aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.
e. Expulsion orders (by Haganah/IDF).
The Israeli Intelligence Service gives an explanation re. the main factors, concluding that “without doubt, hostile (edit: own) operations were the main cause of the movement of the population”.
According to the own analyses, it was a forced expulsion, or ethnic cleansing.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Re. the question why all the observed reality is allowed to happen, is because it is based on human nature, and the nature of our prefered systems of capitalism/democracy.
All states, also the western style "liberal democracies" and "good states" have set up deep-impacting non-elected agencies, which are outside of the control of any voters, and therefore the collective wisdom and moral values of humanity. The resulting system is that of pyramidically shaped systems of gain, contained within other pyramidical systems of gain, in which ultimate gain and power is funneled to the very top. These pyramidically shaped (structured) systems of gain called "capitalism" and "politics" have the stated goal of pushing and removing opposition, largely and correctly known as being a "dirty game" (euphemism) and are designed by nature to attract fellow human beings with psychopathic tendencies (***see below footnotes).
A large portion of our fellow human beings perceive these as valid traits to achieve the own political and personal priorities. "Might is right", and "end justifies the means" are still axioms of so-called superiority. There is also no reason to believe that any other system which promises power, will not attract similar numbers of bullies and psychopaths.
Reality: "Liberal democracies" and "capitalist gain models" attract psychos like moths to the flame, and most human beings wouldn't be able to spot a "psycho" even if their lives depended on it.
Most human beings living in symbiosis of systems either don't have the skill to recognize bad actors, nor the inclination to remove them since it is tangentially beneficial to own favored systems, or have become directly entrapped by the "gain models" (pyramids) lead by such bad actors. An example of this would be the case of Oliver North, whose psychopathic dealings were rewarded by "the system" with a highly paid management position (NRA). It doesn't seem to bother sufficient decent people enough to make such "management styles" impossible (effect a "stopper" against such models de jure or de facto). Indeed, based on observation, and looking back in history it can therefore be concluded that such behaviour is only given a "slap on the wrist", and therefore continues in "good empires". Studies have shown that models based on "intent of gain", like capitalism, have rates of people with psychopathic tendencies as high as 20%. Compare that reality to the average for a normal society, or usual non-gain models of cooperation, which is around a "1% psycho saturation rate". There is no reason to believe other models of "intent of gain" (like politics) do not have similar high rates of psychos.
All empires as collectives of individuals have by nature, psychopathic and bullying tendencies. Note that the "Hollywood image" of the "psycho" and "the bully" is faaaaar removed from reality. The unfortunate reality is that most psychopaths/bullies remain undetected, and undetectable, because they manipulate entire groups of "non-psychos/non-bullies" into following them as beneficiaries, who then start entire campaigns of coverups and deception themselves.
These psychopathic traits are generally considered to be common traits, and are defined: stated where these individual traits overlap with governments:
- have split personalities (the political reality of "doves" and "hawks" coexisting in one "brain")
- they are narcissistic (constantly pointing the finger "outwards" in attempts at deflecting from own actions and goals)
- they have "brains" (governments) which control, or misconstruct data
- scheme for own gain (policies, doctrines, and the likes of that)
- use manipulative strategies as tools in order to mislead billions of people
These bad actors and deceivers are allowed "to play", to lie and deceive, telling their inhabitants things like "all we want is peace", whereas in reality there are elements pushing for eternal war which benefits the systems they represent.
Further traits, which can be scaled up or down to all levels of human cooperation, but not limited to (from wiki): "Meanness. Lacking empathy and close attachments (edit: the urge to avoid unity with others), disdain of close attachments (edit: steer away from mutually beneficial treaties), use of cruelty to gain empowerment (edit: torture, concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, etc. and then making excuses for the perpetrators), exploitative tendencies (edit: i.e. ethnic cleansing, etc.), defiance of authority (like disdain for higher bodies of common humanity, like UN rulings), and destructive excitement seeking (edit: saying things like "dodging bullets is exciting", whilst on expeditions intending to steal self-governance from others)." (end of quote)
Therefore, logically, all one needs to do is find out what these manipulators (as a collective hive mind operating in pyramically shaped systems of gain) are trying to manipulate the majorities into cheering for.
If you wish to truly understand the "how" and "why", then go to the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under this video. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
No, these essays are not a "conspiracy theory."
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
Most of what we are fed by our systems, as "rote leaning" details, are "99% ancillary details": not saying these are untrue or wrong, but simply that they are not as important on the ranking or "tiers" of events as geopolitics and grand strategy.
For these geostrategists, divide and rule/conquer is their main strategy, regardless of what you as an individual believe.
Footnotes/key words for further research:
* 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
* Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
* The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemon.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quite or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Not Buy: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," buy 2nd hand quality products, or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just "not buy" ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join "not buy", because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, nothing has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by "not buying" all big brands. Start "not buying" them all.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
jamsoup OK, let's go back to 1919, and the 600,000 people who lived here at the time.
Note that they were already a mixed and fully developed society (mostly Muslims, but also Christians, Jews and a few other minorities)
This mixed religious and ethnic population of what was then (1919) a British colony, could be said as "widely at peace". They had settled in, accommodated each other, and apart from the typical human squabbling and vying for opportunities, there were no big problems.
So what happened after 1919?
The people living here were not uneducated primitives. They had obviously studied history, and especially the impact of western colonialism on other regions of the world, and what happened to the local populations as soon as large numbers of "white settlers", business people, etc. flooded in.
Hawaii (Kingdom of Hawaii, annexed and then flooded with immigrats), Fiji (flooded with cheap Indian labor), South Africa, Tasmania (an entire people and culture wiped out), the Americas....
Note, that that is what happened in the recent and relevant history AND at the time these people were alive.
Remember the "few white settlers" who arrived in N. America in the 17th century, and traded glass beads for "only a little bit of land"?
Need I continue?
Please answer the following.
Why should any indigenous people, anywhere in the world, have "welcomed" becoming a minority without widespread political and economic power on their own lands?
3
-
jamsoup What I wrote above is not a justification for violence or terrorism, but an explanation of why and how history unfolded the way it did.
Of course, Israel has a right to exist.
Jews today have a right to safety and an own country in which they decide on which path to take for their own people.
My personal standpoint on this is that it is nobody's fault for being born where they were born, and the world would be a far better place if this is simply accepted as logical and reasonable.
In other words, it is not your "fault" for being born in Canada, even if your parents might be Scottish, Irish, German, Chinese, or whatever...
However, that "logic" should then also count for everybody else, and also historically.
If it not "wrong" for Jews who were born in Israel today to have a justified right to an own state, then it would also be wrong to judge people who lived in Palestine in 1919, who were born there, through no fault of their own.
Remember, the Bible implores us to "do onto others", and not "see things differently" if we are not affected.
I'm not a fan of the "Arabs have so many countries"- justification. Here's why. "Whites" and "Christians" also have "many countries", so why not go to the USA and give Canada back to the original inhabitants? :-)
Just kidding, but I hope you understand the logic behind that joke.
IMO it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of "Arabs", and the thinking pattern is "they are all the same". There are in fact massive differences within the Arabian countries and subcultures, which would also justify many countries, same as "whites" and "Christians" are not all the same.
Again, such a view (IMO) would also conform to Biblical values, of not judging others by the actions of a few, or maybe having a serious and deep look at own previous actions ("splinters in the own eyes", or "the seeds sown" by own actions).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Churchill was a terrible strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created facts . The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
3
-
The events later called WW1 & WW2 were a part of the same conflagration which started around the year 1900, with the naval powers encircling their continental neighbours.
For the American Century after the year 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger chunk of land than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": the technique used by Washington DC was the same, which is to make use of existing divisions. An ACTIVE means, of making use of such divisions, is known as the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy. A proactive means to further own interests at the expense of others, is to favor some (increasing the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decreasing the power of the snubbed).
For the ACTIVELY ENGAGED "divider" the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in order to achieve the useful division for the higher power, are not important. These are the 99% ancillary details of history. It doesn't matter how division is implemented, or how existing divides are deepened, or who aids for whatever reasons, or whether those aiding and abetting division are even aware that they are aiding division: what matters is that it is implemented.
For the divider it is not important why the tools cooperate, but the fact that the tools cooperate in creating division in overpowering a chunk of the planet somewhere.
Why and that are different premises...
The empire in search of gain disguised by the "only interests"-narrative, does not care about the "why" or "what" you think is "true"...
The conflagration unfolding after 1914 was another European 30 years war (with a 20-year break in between) and had virtually the same powers set up against each other, with a few exceptions (Japan and Italy as newbies or "turncoats"). Details are not important. They are the "99%" of history, which bear no impact on HOW events unfolded.
The powers set up thus were:
1) the naval powers (Great Britain/USA) with their continental "buck catchers" (like France after 1904, and Russia after 1907, for example).
against:
2) the continental alliances, which were encircled and kept from reaching sufficient spheres of influence to grow, by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy started as premeditated action by the naval powers around 1900.
In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", which is a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The end effect of the setup of 1) and 2) was that Western- and Central Europe were virtually destroyed as centers of power, and the USA then used the effect to grind the British Empire into a more manageable "junior partner"-status by use of a premeditated strategy planned after 1940, just after the start of the "second round" of this conflagration. Or as Ricky Gervais would quip, "kick the midget British Empire" in the "bollocks" because after WW2 London was so weak that it could not forge a useful "pattern of relations" (George Kennan, see below) to fight back, and save its own markets from their "best friends".
After 1945 the USA used its own might as "hammer" and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). Stalin (Moscow) of course, smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and the other remaining European states' weaknesses, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2, overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centred imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
All accompanied by fake narratives for the masses, of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the implementation of the American Century®, at the expense of the British Empire)
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
In 1945,for London, there was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games of divide-and-rule, and they were then ruled over, as they once ruled over others.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hmmmmm....the concept of "dishonesty"...
"Since World War II, during a supposed golden age of peace, the United States military has killed or helped kill some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 84 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. The United States is responsible for the deaths of 5 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and over 1 million just since 2003 in Iraq.
Since 2001, the United States has been systematically destroying a region of the globe, bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, not to mention the Philippines. The United States has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces in three-quarters of them."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of West Asia (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders have made use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people. First Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give a weak mind money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
3
-
3
-
Sadly, I don't know if our leaders are stupid or just incompetent.
Because in the end, the real winner was......Stalin.
Stalin, or why we shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win)
Stalin, or why we should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary to aid D-Day, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why it shouldn't have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion...
Why everything should have been done so that the war lasts as long as possible, in order that both sides become exhausted...
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
Yup, that Stalin.
So many of "our boys" were sent to their deaths to make his "commie dream world" become a reality.
Our leaders gave away half of the world to a crook and mass-murderer, and we then spent 50 years, trillions of Pounds and Dollars, and hundreds of thousands of body bags, fighting him in the other half...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
ideology
Source: Dictionary
noun
1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of democracy"
Similar: beliefs, ideas, ideals
This "box" called "TV" billions bow down to, has got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives in sinecure comfort...
Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders who appear to them in these "boxes". The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) to kill for, is democracy in colusion with corporatism, and the slogan they chant is "Make the world safe for democracy".
Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders constantly lie and call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One ideal, must be wrong.
When one criticizes an ideologue's ideology, they expose their true nature.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
That might be an attitude which is valid in times of a labor demand.
For example, the industrial boom years following ww2.
In times like today, with automation, global trade, robotics, etc., there is a surplus of underemployed laborers.
This will result in exploitation.
Pretty soon, you'll see people "willing" to work for 3 bucks an hour, and live in tent cities (like 2009/2010) , because there are 20 other people ALSO willing to work for 3 bucks an hour.
Your idea that a undersupply of labor (for example by throwing out 11 million immigrants), will lead to higher wages is bull. The more employers have to pay, the more they will embrace automation, robot technology, or online business.
If you see a rapid decline of a "surplus" of labor, hourly wages will spike to 25, then 20, then 30 dollars an hour.
THAT is when companies will start laying off, and automating processes....
The average laborer will then have NOTHING, not even a 3 dollar per hour job.
3
-
Divide and rule.
At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be coordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favoratism.
"Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@earthlingthings Far longer than 75 years...
What is happening today, as "stage x", is simply a continuation of a ongoung strategy, and it is nothing new. For 100 years, settler colonists (Irgun, Lehi, Palmach, etc.) cooperating with the hegemon, carried out such practices of harassment, trying to coerce the original inhabitants to flee so they could occupy the land.
A hundred years ago the British Empire dispatched psychos like Orde Wingate (Special Night Squads) who took pleasure in random shootings, or waterboarding opposition to the British Empire in oil, sending the tortured back to their villages to report about the actions of their oppressors.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage" see footnote), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. They would wait.
This is divide-and-rule.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created facts . The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, machines, scientists, Sarin/Tabun plants, and dismantled and carted off hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
3
-
3
-
@matsjonsson9492 @Mats Jönsson All religions forbid suicide.
Islam
Islam clearly forbids suicide as a verse in the Quran instructs:
"And do not kill yourselves, surely God is most Merciful to you.
— Qur'an, Sura 4 (An-Nisa), ayat 29 [19]
The prohibition of suicide has also been recorded in statements of hadith (sayings of Muhammad); for example:
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "He who commits suicide by throttling shall keep on throttling himself in the Hell Fire (forever) and he who commits suicide by stabbing himself shall keep on stabbing himself in the Hell-Fire."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 2:23:446
Muslim scholars and clerics consider suicide forbidden, including suicide bombing.[20][21][22][23][24][25] Nevertheless, the militant groups that carry out "martyrdom operations" (and those that support them) believe that their actions fulfil the obligation of jihad because it's not a selfish suicide but a way to kill kafir (although in the Quran there is no mention of suicide being an act of jihad), and some clerics support this view under certain circumstances.[26][27][28] Similarly, a minority of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries also express support for suicidal martyrdom to varying degrees.[29][30]"
To add to the above, Islam forbids the killing of innocents.
Obviously, 99% of Muslims see it that way.
In your tirades you consistently ignore the obvious which is the simple fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are actually fighting against ISIS, and other terrorists.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works."
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others.
The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same strategies of expansion as they did 500, 200 and 100 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care. As always, the warning voices of the sane halves are ignored, downplayed, "finger pointed" at as "unpatriotic," or as being "in bed with the enemy", and many other forms of equally "rhyming history." It is what they spend billions on every year so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching to the jolly tunes.
The systems and corporations came in droves for SYSTEMIC EXPANSION and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE...
A little piece over here for a little American/NATO base.
A nice little piece over there, of the Nordstream project...
A piece of the Panama Canal.
A tiny sliver of those Ukrainian raw materials...
A nice little chunk of a percentage of political influence.
And ALL of Greenland.
The meddling created by the own proactive divide-and-rule strategy of power then results in effects:
Imperialistic meddling is always a CAUSE to which there will be a resulting EFFECT.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ Here is a guideline on how to recognize any hidden attempt of top-down divide-and-rule by dividers.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by powers, states, empires and corporations to maintain dominance over regions they wished to control and dominate. The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
The whole thing is then maintained by a house of cards made of lies and deceit, with billions of fiat currency.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works."
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others.
The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same strategies of expansion as they did 500, 200 and 100 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care. As always, the warning voices of the sane halves are ignored, downplayed, "finger pointed" at as "unpatriotic," or as being "in bed with the enemy", and many other forms of equally "rhyming history." It is what they spend billions on every year so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching to the jolly tunes.
The systems and corporations came in droves for SYSTEMIC EXPANSION and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE...
A little piece of the Ukraine for a little American base.
A tiny sliver of those raw materials...
A nice little chunk of a percentage of political influence.
The meddling created by the own proactive divide-and-rule strategy of power then results in effects:
Imperialistic meddling is always a CAUSE to which there will be a resulting EFFECT.
3
-
3
-
@JACpotatos As they say, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"...
As Robert Kennedy Jr. notes about the history of the ME:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster
The USA absolutely loooooves Jihadists, as long as they don't act against the USA.
Or, that Biblical logic: "the people shall reap what your leaders have sown", or something like that...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Churchill was a terrible strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created *facts*. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
Payback is certainly a bitch, or...didn't mommy ever warn what would happen if you made the wrong friends?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@neutralitystudies Hello Pascal
I hope the OP sees your reply, but I fear his notification settings might be switched off.
My analysis of what the OP states as his observation of the observed events these past few years, is as follows:
Those who have power constantly preach the "rules based society", but the rules they preach, are nothing like the "rules" they themselves follow as guidelines...
They themselves follow "rules" like the "48 Rules of Power/Robert Greene", which are not meant to overcome the divide and rule setup of any society, even democracies, but to make use of the divisions between systems, amplify these divisions if useful, or gloss over such divisions if beneficial for the own gain, in order to win personally or for the own favored system.
For those who follow such "rules", hypocrisy or lies are not an "oversight", or "a mistake", or "accidental", but a strategy of power (see footnote).
Hypocrites draw other hypocrites into their own circles of power: by being openly hypocritical, a hypocrite exposes himself/herself, and can therefore be approached by systems of gain. This is greatly aided by media, or the internet, incl. "free speech", since hypocrisy and lying is a "protected right". Creating entire entities of professional hypocrites and professional spinners, framers, and liars thereby establishing a hierarchy of hypocrites/deceivers, especially prevallent in systems of power and gain, like politics (incl., but not limited to "liberal democracies"), and all forms of structures with an intent of gain motivation (incl., but not limited to capitalist gain models). All of these attract a potential "<20% psychos" which are proven to exist in the top echelons of power in all "intent of gain systems".
Such systems also attract natural bullies, as per observable reality.
Hypocrites, narcissistic behaviour, bullying, and Machiavellianism might cause unease in the overwhelming number of good people in every society, but these good people are usually not the ones "gatekeeping" (also a bully tactic) the most influencial political/corporate job openings, which are not voted for by the populations of "Western-style"-democracies, or in corporations which then proceed to buy their own favorable laws (lobbying, influence) and buy corruptable politicians in the "legalized bribes"-systems they had previously lobbied for...
Being openly hypocritical and deceptive is a "rule" considered a virtue, in some circles of power.
Calling these people out in an effort of shaming is pointless, since they have no shame.
Footnotes/key words for further research:
* 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
* Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
* The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
* Dr. Namie's research concerneing the 4 bully types of human being
Since all human systems of gain (incl. politics and capitalism) are made up of human beings, the above research can be scaled up to any tier, right up to the level of states/empires.
Those who justify (almost) everything which happened in the past (a divide and rule world), will justify the present.
Because the "divide and rule"-world never ended...
Cheers, Ralph
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I was waiting intently if any of these historians were going fall into the "well-honed rhetoric" of "having to stop Germans, wanting to rule the world" who just "had to be stopped"...
Of course the reality is that there were never any concerted efforts by Berlin to "rule the world" or to take down the British Empire, and the markets contained here. The many quotes by influencial Germans or ideas written down were of course never anything which could ever fit the definition of "a plan".
1) Words, for example by Wilhelm in 1907: "Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."
Such words written down without the intention of ever becoming public, only give a clear indication of intent, but are not a plan.
It isn't enough "evidence" of "wanting to rule the world", as I'm sure everybody will agree.
Words can easily be taken out of context, and spun to mean anything one wishes.
Believe me, it means nothing.
2) During WW1, German strategist envisioned a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" to control: Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under German supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" (sic.) for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.). German strategists even suggested that "the destroyed parts of Europe might get a psychological lift from the project of exploiting" (sic.) Africa."
Of course the Germans were simply thinking about the psychology of the beaten and battered, and how good it must feel to be at least "able to kick down" if ones own future looks bleak.
Perfectly OK strategy, believe me...
3) At the same time, German strategists like Moltke or Hindenburg seemed to favor the idea that since there was a lack of civilized origins in Southern and Eastern Europe ... "and since the processes of government are destined to operate for a long time in the future, in many of these countries, in ways which are strange and uncongenial to Germans ... Berlin should make no moral distinctions with respect to local governments, whether they are democratic in nature or authoritarian ... only an examination of German interests at stake not just political, but economical as well ... should be in order when assessing foreign relations in Southern and Eastern Europe. Moltke goes on to recommend the naked exertion of German national power in influencing the behavior of new states, short of the use of military force, while downplaying the multilateral binding obligations that might result from the new systems system of Conferences." (loosely quoted)
Of course in the minds of such strategists, it is the people's own fault if their destiny was to become only superficially "quasi independent/sovereign" states, with own leaders to be dominated and directed as mere German puppets, and the people controlled by a police state financed from and by Berlin (and a few other "chosen few"). If some "scraps" fall off the richly-lain tables at home, onto the locals they should not complain, but be happy about such scraps...
In such a system, everybody in power understood that disloyalty would be met by immediate repercussions: a little "regime change invasion" here, and coup there, or propaganda campaigns of "discontent" funded from outside, or "disgrunted masses" suddenly finding themselves funded by sh*tloads of cash from secret slush funds...all depepending on what strategy best suited the country and times.
All with the subtle "message" to all others to "be nice, or else..."
Of course, all of the above were simply "ideas floated" on how to control "lesser people" so that 3% of the population in this sphere of influence (so-called "Grand Area") can then control 50% of the wealth contained here.
Nothing wrong with that of course, since such instincts of greed are normal, as we shall see.
The "plan" to "rule the world" is of course based on loosely gathered strings of information from official and inofficial sources (incl. NGOs), strung together into a giant story.
For the average readers/viewer, the quotes above are of course part of "a plan" or "the perfect evidence" of how Germans wanted to "rule the world", and subdue the British Empire, their biggest rival.
Only...
...the words...
Are not German.
The first paragraph was made by Woodrow Wilson, one of the world's biggest advocates of imperialism/white supremacy (whilst hiding behind a "an image" of being a liberal/idealist) and taken from a unpublished paper of 1907, as quoted in The Rising American Empire (1960) by Richard Warner Van Alstyne, p. 201.
Wilson of course was simply looking at what had happened the past 200 years as the original "13 colonies", first fought for independence, and then started going N.E.W.S. (North/East/West/South), brushing away all in its path. They wouldn't stop going, until they bumped up against European imperialism, their biggest rivals.
The second and third paragraphs were taken from a series of Washington DC "strategy papers": "During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed."
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this."
(taken from, in parts: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive Diplomático y escritor)
Parts 1), 2) and 3) in the first half were taken verbatim from US leaders, and only changed to mask the country of origin. I did this to make a point, which is hopefully understood...
These strategies by leaders who "wanted to rule the world" is simply a part of that "1%" of history which just does not make it to the mainstream for wider audiences...
3
-
3
-
3
-
The events later called WW1 & WW2 were a part of the same conflagration which started around the year 1900, with the naval powers encircling their continental neighbours.
For the American Century after the year 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger chunk of land than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": the technique used by Washington DC was the same, which is to make use of existing divisions. An ACTIVE means, of making use of such divisions, is known as the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy. A proactive means to further own interests at the expense of others, is to favor some (increasing the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decreasing the power of the snubbed).
For the ACTIVELY ENGAGED "divider" the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in order to achieve the useful division for the higher power, are not important. These are the 99% ancillary details of history. As an example of such "99% ancillary details, we can refer to any speech, by any politician ever. Empty words, directed at the listeners limbic brain system. See above speech. BECAUSE..it doesn't matter how division is implemented, or how existing divides are deepened, or who aids for whatever reasons, or whether those aiding and abetting division are even aware that they are aiding division: what matters is that it is implemented.
For the divider it is not important why the tools cooperate, but the fact that the tools cooperate in creating division in overpowering a chunk of the planet somewhere.
Why and that are different premises...
The empire in search of gain disguised by the "only interests"-narrative, does not care about the "why" or "what" you think is "true"...
The conflagration unfolding after 1914 was another European 30 years war (with a 20-year break in between) and had virtually the same powers set up against each other, with a few exceptions (Japan and Italy as newbies or "turncoats"). Details are not important. They are the "99%" of history, which bear no impact on HOW events unfolded.
The powers set up thus were:
1) the naval powers (Great Britain/USA) with their continental "buck catchers" (like France after 1904, and Russia after 1907, for example).
against:
2) the continental alliances, which were encircled and kept from reaching sufficient spheres of influence to grow, by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy started as premeditated action by the naval powers around 1900.
In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", which is a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The end effect of the setup of 1) and 2) was that Western- and Central Europe were virtually destroyed as centers of power, and the USA then used the effect to grind the British Empire into a more manageable "junior partner"-status by use of a premeditated strategy planned after 1940, just after the start of the "second round" of this conflagration. Or as Ricky Gervais would quip, "kick the midget British Empire" in the "bollocks" because after WW2 London was so weak that it could not forge a useful "pattern of relations" (George Kennan, see below) to fight back, and save its own markets from their "best friends".
After 1945 the USA used its own might as "hammer" and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). Stalin (Moscow) of course, smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and the other remaining European states' weaknesses, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2, overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centred imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003. Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power. When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
London poured their division upon the planet, incl. their neighbours, waging the finger and exposing every weakness, in search of alignments for own gain, however carefully hidden. But in the town of Washington DC today, it is well-known that their (economically) fat and (systemically) psychopathic "saviours" economically thrashed London in their hour of weakness after 1945, to within inches of their (colonial) lives, and took their beautiful Empire away from them. Inspired by "The Wall/Pink Floyd": Take out one "brick" at a time, hoping the "bricks" won't notice how the entire entity is weakened...
Thus, they pulled the bricks out of the wall of European strength, until it collapsed. And that collapse included London, and their Empire, not altruistically but the causal effect of London's wish to CONTROL or dominate their neighbors. Their own failure came about as an effect of their own inbuilt systemic greed and individual stupidity.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative.
Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a "fact"? Because it actually happened. If an actual fair treaty had ended WW1 in 1919, there would not have been a "WW2" and none of that which followed in the wake of an unfair end, would have ever happened.
Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
After a short halt, the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an "IMbalance of powers" as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing.
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Trying to remain neutral in the face of a grand strategy by global players is futile if the players intend to outwit each other by using people as "tools" on their "chessboards." The bigger picture can be distorted, and reality can be manipulated to deceive millions of people. You are an integral part of the games, wanted or not. The history of the encirclement policy of a Eurasian superpower repeated itself after 1990. The intent of the hegemonic power is to "transform" the smaller systems into tools of encirclement (proxies) or "unsinkable aircraft carriers" for its own systemic control or expansion. Then produce the entire story as "protecting freedom/friends/democracy," a "fight for freedom," or some other story that sounds good in Hollywood (a "bread and circuses" strategy for the domestic masses).
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
For the "divider," the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises...
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategist who openly admit this.
The conflagration that took place after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War, with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy o divide-nd-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they "feel" better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Do unto others what you do not want done to you."
Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the "logic" of causality where there is a trench waiting for you...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Yes, the oldest game: those who wished to gain from unity, vs. those who wished to gain from division.
The graphic depiction of Yin and Yang is not only valid about the "good vs bad" dichotomy (Taoism), but can also apply to the model of "UNITY/CONCORD" vs "DIVISION/DISCORD".
As the model of Yin and Yang states, there is always some good in the bad, and always some bad in the good, and equilibrium is hard to achieve since human nature tends to allow the pendulum to swing past the point of equilibrium, towards the other pole.
In the same way, every system based on division per default, always contains some elements of forces of unity. And, the other way around: systems based on the default setting that unity is the main principle, will always contain elements of division. When studying thousands of man-made systems, one reaches the conclusion that some are more "top down" UNITY with some lower tiered "freedoms" allowed in order to keep the peace (European monarchies, as examples), whilst others are more "bottom up freedoms" with restrictions applying (France, after the French Revolution). Both meet in the middle somewhere (Yin/Yang), and then try to constantly balance powers between the various factions.
Exemplary: A "Republic" is already a "meet-in-the-middle" approach, since it divides power on multiple tiers as political framework or structure with a desirable pyramidal shape of POWER to ensure bottom-up freedoms do not become unrulable.
CHINESE CENTURY OF SHAME (outsiders' interests = great market, to be divvied up)
In the 19th- and first half of the 20th century, the local political forces in China had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER. The local strategists used old strategies to try to re-introduce a fully sovereign China. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for Chinese interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside imperialist powers and their proxy rule and domination. During these roughly 100 years, the European imperialist powers were later joined by the USA and Japanese imperialist powers, and various competing ideologies, all continuously using China as battleground for an entire century.
Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided Chinese systems, is of course a dumb strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. If weak, and while weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division. You don't fight fire with fire, but with water.
One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity.
Note that the vital passages to understand the interaction of STRATEGIES and SYSTEMS are highlighted and cannot be ignored for the sake of anybody's feelings.
Cause: Already existing divides and outside meddling as divide-and-rule strategy of power and their local proxies (later stages: Chinese Nationalists).
Effect: Top down enforced unity, to squeeze foreign influence out, with outside support as the communists (Maoists supported by Moscow) of imposed unity.
Both SIDES carried out acts of extreme brutality, atrocities, crimes against humanity, and which only differed in scope and means of implementation to achieve an own aim (DIVISION or UNITY in the region in question).
The UNIFIERS won most of the battles and squeezed the outside dividers out of most of the region in question, except one province: Formosa/Taiwan.
STATUS today: UNDECIDED/SLIGHT STATE OF DIVISION PERSISTS
THERE IS THE TEMPLATE
Unity in a region of the planet, for the benefit of those who live here, versus division by outside forces, for the benefit of outsiders and their local support.
Take this template anywhere you wish, and it will rhyme.
This is regardless of the point on the timeline, or the region of the planet.
All it depends upon is the POWER of the opposing forces, and the template will become either MORE violent, or less violent.
Both or all SIDES carry out acts of extreme brutality, atrocities, crimes against humanity, and which only differ in scope and means of implementation to achieve an own aim (DIVISION or UNITY in the region in question).
THE ME DURING THE COLD WAR (interests = oil, strategic value)
The local political forces had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER during the 19th and 20th centuries, right through to today (current events). The local strategists used old strategies to try to re-introduce a fully sovereign Middle East. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for local interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside imperialist powers and their proxy rule and domination. During these roughly 100 years, the European imperialist powers were later joined by the USA, and later Soviet and Western ideologies, all continuously using West Asia as battleground.
Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided systems, is of course a dumb strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. If weak, and while weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division. You don't fight fire with fire, but with water.
One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity.
Cause: Already existing divides and outside meddling as divide-and-rule and the old established colonial structure Western puppets.
Effect: Top down enforced unity, to squeeze foreign influence out. Arab nationalism (or MAGA for the Middle East "Make Arabia Great Again"), a secular (note, not favouring any of the many local pre-existing religious or ethnic groups/factions) form of imposed unity, for example the Baathist Party in Iraq and Syria (still ongoing, which explains current events).
Both SIDES carried out, and still do, acts of extreme brutality, atrocities, crimes against humanity, and which only differed in scope and means of implementation to achieve an own aim (DIVISION or UNITY in the region in question).
The DIVIDERS won most of the battles and squeezed the inside unifiers out of most of the region in question.
STATUS today: UNDECIDED/EXTREME DIVISION PERSISTS
EUROPE/EURASIA (outsiders' interests = a potential seat of POWER if united, therefore to be kept as divided as possible)
During the 20th century the local political forces had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, right through to today (current events). The local strategists used old strategies to try to re-introduce a fully sovereign Europe/Eurasia. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for European/Eurasian interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside powers and their proxy rule and domination. During these roughly 125 years (1900 to today), the European imperialist powers were later joined by the USA and Japanese imperialist powers, and later Soviet and Western ideologies, all continuously using Eurasia as battleground.
Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided Eurasian systems, is of course a dumb strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. If weak, and while weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division. You don't fight fire with fire, but with water.
One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity.
Cause: Already existing divides and outside meddling as divide-and-rule.
Effect: Top down enforced unity, to squeeze foreign influence out.
During the final stages of this struggle, which are termed "WW1 and WW2", all SIDES carried out acts of extreme brutality, atrocities, crimes against humanity, and which only differed in scope and means of implementation to achieve an own aim (DIVISION or UNITY in the region in question).
STATUS today: UNDECIDED/DIVISION PERSISTS
The patterns of unity vs. division always rhyme. No, they will not always be 100% the same (see Yin/Yang). Therefore any statement claiming that history repeats is incorrect. There are always many local variations often dictated by geography, population, ideologies, religions, etc.
TODAY
The entire system they still favor in the USA and collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often repeated nice-sounding storyline.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"You will own nothing and be happy."
First, they came for the mom and pop stores, but we had Amazon & cie., and did not care.
Then, they came for the farmers all over the world, but we did not care for we had Walmart shelves packed to the brim...
Finally, when the corporations come for your house, there will be nobody left to speak for you.
How convenient if family-led businesses and farms all over go bankrupt. The corporations can swarm in, get the land cheaply, and feast on the dividends of renting the property back to the original owners.
In the end, you will own nothing, but you won't be happy.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The biggest misconception about WW1 is that GB joined in to "save poor Belgians".
[britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power]
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
The Germans, became "the rival/enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
Make the strongest country/alliance the rival, and "balance it out".
Let's dumb it down a little.
A toff walks into a pub in August 1914 and says: "Listen up folks, there's going to be a war on the continent soon. You, you, and you!! Go and volunteer for a muddy trench, some PTSD, and to get your head blown off so we can balance those powers..."
Pub:
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
From NATOs website:
"NATO Allies welcome Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO and they stand by the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance. Decisions regarding NATO membership are up to each individual applicant and the 30 NATO Allies. No one else. Russia has no right to intervene and cannot veto this process. Like every country, Ukraine has the sovereign right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security, one that Russia has also signed up to, including through the Helsinki Final Act (1975), the Charter of Paris (1990), the NATO-Russia Founding Act (1997) and the Charter for European Security (1999)."
Sounds "fair", right?
It is literally how "divide and conquer" works.
Seriously? The "alpha" graciously "allows" the "beta" to choose world afairs?
It is literally "history repeating" in "rivers of blood".
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...bye, bye..."
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct FACT: they did nothing.
First baited.
Then pwomises made.
Then sold out, when they DID next to NOTHING.
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct date on the timeline which is March 1939, when they did nothing.
The Ukraine today?
First baited.
Then pwomises made.
Then sold out, and they DO next to NOTHING.
Errrr...shouldn't they have considered that in view of escalation and Mutually Assured Destruction, before the guns started firing?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
For all those Eastern European "new friends" out there watching this.
Welcome to a united Europe.
Hopefully, it will stay this way, and we are never again divided by scrupulous leaders with evil "divide and rule" intentions.
And if you feel the urge to state "...revenge for Warsaw, Moscow, Stalingrad, Kiew..."
Just remember one thing.
Not even a year after 1945, and your dear family and relatives were lucky that the Americans didn't decide to join up for Operation Unthinkable, and nuke Warsaw, Moscow, Stalingrad, Kiew...
Great "friends".
Yes, even the theory that London got rid of Sikorski is perfectly plausible, seeing how he insisted on justice for those murdered by the communists.
Operation Unthinkable was just another example of London's deceitfull ways, same as it was most likely London who sacrificed Polish leader Sikorski in return for better relations with the more powerfull Moscow.
London: "Poland? Who cares about little Poland, if the alternative is a big friend Russia? Little Poland: off you go. Crocodile feed..."
London would pay for their eternal deceit after the war, when their "best friends" in Moscow tore up the Percentages Agreement re. markets for British goods in Eastern Europe, and a percentage of political influence. London had deceived the Bible, and "allied with the devil" (Stalin), because they thought there was more "in it" for them.
So when "the devil" cheated them out of "a deal" they should not have been surprized.
That was how their "Empire" failed.
They made no friends.
London only made "deals" for the own benefit, and sold off "little nations" or "old friends" whenever it suited them.
But that is not the end of the story.
Finally, London was deceived by Washington DC.
When nuclear weapons were proven to work (1945), Washington DC tore up the Quebec Agreement and refused to hand over the mutually developed nukes to London.
London therefore had no way to force or threaten Stalin with a little "unthinkable" operation to uphold the Percentages Agreement, or a share of political influence in eastern Europe.
Washington DC. "No hard feelings [tears up the agreement and smirks]. It's just a scrap of paper..."
Stalin (1945): "Sooooo, London: You've got a big navy and lots of battleships? You've got Brrrrrr-Lancasters? Cool. Who cares? You want to be "fwiends"?" [tears up the Percentages Agreement and smirks].
And so.
The deceivers.
Got deceived.
Lovely...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@matsjonsson9492 It was immature twats playing soldierboy...Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rice, Powell...
They should all be in jail.
Yes, Obama too.
He didn't solve any problems either.
After some thought, he just carried on where others before him left off.
What makes you think there is is any US president I admire? Tgere isn't. They are all the same.
And when Trump kicks off the next war in the ME, and despite his words, he will do it as long as he thinks he can get away with it, you'll be there to defend him with..."but, but, but...moooozies..."
Don't forget who is in whose world, and who started it in 1919 at the end of WW1.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@matsjonsson9492 Where did I say the USA "created" Jihadism and Communism?
Communism was a result of a long process of theoretical works (Marxism, etc.) which got a chance to be used as a tool by Germany during WW1.
German leaders allowed prominent Communists like Lenin passage to St. Petersburg, in order to start a revolution.
That had nothing to do with GB or the USA.
I said that after WW1, GB and tbe USA did little to stop it from spreading (political policy of "containment" which you can google for more info).
After some half-hearted attempts to fight it (Murmansk invasion, Siberia etc.) they withdrew and let the commies storm over Ukraine, White Russia, the Caucasus Republics, murdering millions.
They didn't give a sh*t.
Keeping the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk intact, would have bound the commies to peace, and would have restricted them to Russia only.
The Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Georgia, etc. and all these places could have already been independent since 1918.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.” — Henry Kissinger (attr.)
The beauty of "history", is that the "control freaks" of history tell you exactly what they aim to do. Whether Kissinger actually said this or not, is not important. What is important is that it is one of those age-old truisms known to the average history fan as the "siege" of towns and fortresses, as the "naval blockade" (military strategy) as technology improved, or in modern times the "political/economic sanctions", all with a host of variations as our world became more and more complex.
When these few have the MONEY, they CONTROL the resources, and that includes human beings all over the globe as potential PROXIES as "human resources".
Summary generated by ChatGPT from the video description of the UCLA video:
"The 1994 discussion between Henry Kissinger and Jack Matlock revolved around the contentious issue of NATO expansion and its implications for U.S.-Russia relations and Eastern Europe's stability. The debate was set against the backdrop of Russian opposition, articulated by President Boris Yeltsin, who warned that expanding NATO could lead to a "cold peace" and further isolate Russia. Kissinger supported NATO expansion as a necessary step to ensure the security and sovereignty of Central European countries like Poland and Hungary. He argued that delaying expansion could create a geopolitical vacuum, leaving these nations vulnerable to influence from both Germany and Russia. Kissinger viewed NATO as a stabilizing force and an "insurance policy" against future uncertainties, emphasizing that such moves need not antagonize Russia if managed through diplomatic and military assurances. Matlock, however, cautioned against hasty expansion, noting that Russia's current weakness did not pose an immediate military threat. He believed that NATO expansion might inflame nationalist sentiments within Russia, complicating its internal politics and its path toward democracy. Instead, he argued for prioritizing economic integration of Eastern European nations into the European Union and maintaining diplomacy to address Russian concerns. The conversation highlighted differing perspectives on balancing security, diplomacy, and the risks of escalating tensions in post-Cold War Europe."
Arguing "two sides of the same fence", which was systemic expansion into Eastern Europe, using Russia's weakness after the fall of the USSR.
The use of millions of people as tools to cause friction in Eastern Europe with NATO expansion in order to overpower a weakened Russia, was the set path in order to assure US "primacy" per strategy (Wolfowitz Doctrine, 1991). The smokescreen as cover was provided by the parallel running promises of comprehensive security agreements, OSCE, Partnership for Peace, et al...
The goal? Carve Russia up, and use the pieces left over to encircle on China, the next in line after Germany (Treaty of Versailles/WW2), and siphon off the riches for own gain.
Divide-and-rule/destroy/control simply moved further east.
Re. the strategies our leaders follow.
They have not changed much over time.
Age-old strategies to advance own interests, which do not exclude cheating their "friends" and Christian "brothers" in the Caucasus.
Taiwan, Georgia, and others, take note.
"Friendship" does not exist on the ladder to success, or to stay on top of the pyramid kicking down.
A tale as old as the Bible.
Esau and Jacob is of course a cautionary tale to beware of brothers who come to you with a GIFT which has morphed over time and now means "winning means everything". Note that in this biblical "tale" about eternal deceit and "cheating own brothers out of their inheritance", that the deceiver is the hero of the story.
Those who end up with the RICHES under your feet, are the heroes. The deceiver's name and slimy ways continue.
Esau the inheritor and his father's favourite, as a name has sorta died out...
Just remember, wherever you live, that you just a "dog" in a "manger" (Churchill), and that the RESOURCES intended to be passed onto you as natural inheritance, belong to the OUTSIDERS, in the OUTSIDERS heads, and according to the strategies of these OUTSIDERS. The "smooth talking good guy", the spiffy clean deceiver, scamming his own brother, whilst arguing like a woman creating division within unity and creating the BLACK LEGEND of his brother (the "bad guy"), is the "hero" of history. Very telling indeed.
"If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past." - Baruch Spinoza
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
What was the REAL "lesson" of the Barbary Wars, and the subsequent series of events?
What is the strategic lesson almost no historian ever talks about?
Answer: the price of not unifying to speak with a single voice.
First they (outside powers, more or less "united" in a cause), came for the Barbary States.
The last one to "go" was Morocco, finally "carved up" by European powers, in conjunction with the USA, in 1911.
Last to "go" was The Ottoman Empire, in WW1.
From "empire" to "Turkey" (post WW1) in around 200 years.
Later this maxim of POWER would repeat again, and again.
The price of not uniting in time.
This is regardless of any "feelings."
Since "facts" (strategy) count higher than "feelings."
Same as the Ottoman Empire failed to unite into a single cohesive "united states" speaking with a single voice, and neither did Europe, so the USA could pick them apart piecemeal...
First to "go" was Spain.
First the USA came for Spain, but the rest of Europe was like "I don't care, I'm not the Spanish Empire..."
Lastly, they came for the British Empire, but there was nobody left to speak for them...
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
-----------------------------------
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Bomber "they sowed the wind" Harris
vs
Reality "they ruined the British Empire" Bites...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The distorters of history lie about everything. Even the Bible they claim to love so much....
When one does wrong, it doesn't matter how one justifies these wrongs.
Or, the true meaning of the Biblical "reap the whirlwind".
In the Bible (Hosea), Israel allied with the devil (Assyria), rather than trust in God, and subsequently lost their worldly "empire" (Hosea).
The biblical wisdom of not allying with evil (Stalin/communism) has been distorted over time, to become a justification for own actions ("reap the whirlwind" = punishment).
A fallacy.
It is only half the story, or "lying by omission".
Because "evil" has even less scrupples than oneself, and therefore allying with evil will mean that one will get screwed over by the devil one has allied with.
Read Hosea.
Even if one is an atheist, these wisdoms are based on thousands of years of human observations.
By own admission, GB allied with the devil (Stalin), and then set off to destroy the German people, rather than letting the two devils (Hitler and Stalin) "slug it out" to mutual destruction on the Eastern Front, while concentrating on the own priorities (Western Desert, Battle of the Atlantic, etc.)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The price for a "flattened Germany" would be paid after WW2.
Of course, Germany as a power, benefited the British Empire.
Empire's "fwiends"?
Of course, they had their own agendas.
Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
Stalin quickly and instinctively figured out that Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. Here's Greece. I'll take the rest, including your friends Poland 100%. What are you going to do about it?"
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Good job American Century too.
They had a gweat team...
And so Brits bombed themselves into financial ruin.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Aww.
Too bad.
Can't all be winners :-D
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Aww.
So sad.
Too bad.
Lost their impure empire, and then some...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
What connects the topic of this video, as "compartmentalized history" and 99% ancillary details, with the bigger overall European "picture"?
It is "divide and rule" as THE "systems/strategies" tier of things, as the 1% of history that counts...
Exemplary of a divide and rule/conquer strategy:
Entire regions of human beings are used or set up as proxies, as "walls" or "Limitrophe States" to seperate potential areas which might unite.
Wiki: "In modern history, it was used to refer to provinces that seceded from the Russian Empire at the end of World War I, during the Russian Civil War (1917–1922), thus forming a kind of belt or cordon sanitaire separating Soviet Russia from the rest of Europe during the interwar period.[4]... The nations were then "the cards to change hands in big political games" and included the Baltic peoples, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians."
These nations were, and still are today, simply "tools" for the empires who hold the geographical advantage of power
When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think*** today.
Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer of and over continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers.
These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology).
Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.
The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group. As for Wilson, was he really that naive to think that the large and prominent forces of isolationism would not prevail, and lead to the USA/Washington DC not joining any collectivised system of security for the entire planet?
Was there really no "Plan B" in Washington DC?
Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
The "oh so fine" British Lordships thought they could play divide and rule/conquer games with the world, and in the end British citizens and military men lost bigtime, as at the very end of the Empire, their own Lordships "...ran off with all the f%cking money..." (quote = George Carlin/ reality = tax havens).
The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely.
No, this is not a "yet another conspiracy theory," but elaborated and provided with sufficient evidence, and inductive/deductive reasoning on the other channel/video.
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
**As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the *systems/strategies tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS/GLOBALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS/MILITARISTS. Their branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mercer1995 The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages.
In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era instruments of POWER), but cannot be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tamimq5895 Then you are on a good track. These channels place the systems and the strategies in the foreground, and try to disregard the "clutter" caused by human emotions.
What they are however not doing sufficiently IMHO is exactly "HOW" the dividers set entire systems of human being up against each other.
Here's my contribution to that:
The cool thing about divide and rule is that according to Lindy's Law, things which have been around for a looooong time, tend to stick around for a lot longer.
Once upon a time, a man set out to defeat the divide and rule system of a great empire: By a series of bottom-up opposition techniques and measures, known collectively as "Quit India", the advocates set about creating unity from the bottom up, by unravelling the divide and rule system of privileges afforded to a few, by the hegemon.
"Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869 – 1948), popularly known as Mahatma Gandhi, was an Indian lawyer,[4] anti-colonial nationalist[5] and political ethicist[6] who employed nonviolent resistance to lead the successful campaign for India's independence from British rule,[7] and to later inspire movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. The honorific Mahātmā (Sanskrit: "great-souled", "venerable"), first applied to him in 1914 in South Africa, is now used throughout the world.[8][9]" (Wiki)
Born into relative obscurity, to Time Person of the Year (1930), over time wielding an incredible amount of power, by simply preaching justice in the face of injustice, and he was later crucified by his very own people.
The Empire in the shape of "Pontius Pilate" washed its hands in innocence, and as supreme power, let those locals whom the empire had enabled "take care of matters": a fine outcome for the Empire. The "proxies" did the bidding of those who wielded the true power. The instruments of power did the screaming and the shouting, protected their privileges, and even killed each other...
Strip away the ancillary details, the ideology, the hubris, zeolotry and jingoism, and the political situations and the solutions sought by a few advocates for freedom and self-determination were remarkably similar. The stories "rhyme". Jesus of Nazareth (+/- 4 BC to 30 AD), popularly known as Mesiah, was a Jewish carpenter, anti-colonial humanist (aka "a hippie") and political ethicist who employed nonviolent resistance to lead the unfortunately unsuccessful campaign of opposition to Roman rule, and to later inspire movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. The honorific Jesus, only applied long after his death, is now used throughout the world.
Perceived as a threat by the systems of power. Wiki: "He (edit: Jesus) was arrested and tried by the Jewish authorities,[24] turned over to the Roman government, and crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Jerusalem."
A perfect description of how the divide and rule system operates.
Set up "proxies" against each other.
Favor some locals, above others, and afford them rank, privilege and limited powers.
Simplest thing in the world. What all divide and rule systems have in common, is a plethora of the willing: Those who'd gladly throw the first stone.
Scale it up to any level of power, of any tier of systems ranged against other systems...
It's been around for a loooooong time, and it would be foolish to think it simply vanished into thin air.
Nothing any human being has ever come up with, has ever eclipsed the power it wields over millions of minds.
Critical question: Even if Jesus did not know what he was really up against, and only wished to stand up to what he was witnissing as the divide and rule/conquer system of the Roman Empire, why do you think he advised to "love neighbors" (neighboring systems) and "love your enemies"? (in other words, those who are the most difficult to "love"). In case you are from the Islamic system, once created by the British Empire to "steer against each other" as "lines on the map" set up during and after WW1, then please remember that Jesus is a common prophet of all Abrahamic Religions, and his words should be considered as valid for all equaly. The "dividers" were the empires, which set people up against each other.
The Roman Empire = The British Empire mirrored each other, in the "techniques" they used to control millions or subjects.
Of course, the intention of any divide and rule system is to make people "hate their neighbors" and to "create enemies" of systems for the benefit of the "dividers" who skim off enormous gain in the form of power and influence. The way to beat the "divide and rule" system of any hegeomony, is to do the exact opposite of one's own emotions. It is the emotions the "divide and rule"-strategy of the outside powers are going to concentrate on.
The own individual emotions is what the "dividers" have focussed on throughout history. Therefore, overcoming these emotions is the first step.
cheers
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries.
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
3
-
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt...
3
-
3
-
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Footnote:
Note that according to Machiavelli, the "princes" connected to the land and who benefited from their hereditary rule were also the GATEKEEPERS and were connected to what they saw as theirs. Whether one likes this style of inherited wealth and power or not, their role was the gatekeepers of being the managers of own affairs. Opposed to that, in strategy and human nature, the "mercenary" is the OUTSIDER (internationalists/globalists) who came/come or the profit and gain and who are NOT "connected" to the land and its peoples at all, and place their own interests, often vested interests, BEFORE the people who live on the land. This narrative is often distorted today into meaning that "to be a Machiavelli is to be an a-hole" which is a distortion of what the book was about. Machiavelli states clearly to keep ones "princes" in POWER, for to lose them would mean losing the GATEKEEPERS, who via their own vested interests, also protect the people who live in entire regions of the world. Via Trojan Horses, "democracies" can be CAPTURED (culturally-, economically-, politically-, emotionally and militarily), as a process which can be studied as the actors reveal themselves through their actions/events. This can be studied as systemic analyses.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was peace, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces and walks off wit GAIN, when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
>>>
The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
>>>
The people of the Americas, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people into "ingroups". In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the USA's power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS. Eden was a status quo divided by lies and deceit. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the two Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly are two cheeks of the same gold-plated hind which sets out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, is the mirror of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets and becomes successful it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances.
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
It's divide-and-rule today, and it was divide-and-rule 20 years ago, it was divide-and-rule 50 years ago, it was the same strategy 100 years ago, and 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the locals were too weak/divided to unite.
3
-
3
-
3
-
A tax covered or social healthcare (as exists in most developed countries in the world) should not be a free ticket to wasting common funds on luxuries. Therefore, if most common health issues are covered, then the system is ok.
Buying a little bit of luxury isn't frowned upon here in Europe.
Unlike the US corporate funded propaganda claims, nobody over here says you can't buy a little bit of extra luxury if one can afford it.
It's perfectly ok to have a 2-tier system, as long as the higher tier does not exploit the lower tier.
I've never heard of any "1.5 year waiting time" for an appointment here in Spain.
Usually if in pain, you can just turn up, and you're treated within an hour. An ordinary checkup (no pain) could mean a waiting time of a month or two, but that's ok.
Which country do you live in?
I can only report of the health systems in the 3 countries I've lived in (Netherlands, Germany and Spain) or experienced (through friends and family), and most people are content with the systems. Of course, there's aways something to nag about, but that's human.
Most important thing is though that quality treatment is not connected to one's bank account.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The destruction of German cities and, collective punishment (with the subsequent retrospective justification from a 1945 POV) was one of the most ridiculous and counter productive exercises in warfare ever.
To illustrate why I say this, consider this objective chain of events.
The Area Bombing Directive, and OFFICIAL British government POLICY
According to the Area Bombing Directives of February 1942 "...entire cities were to be targeted..." (carpet bombing of city centers, hidden behind euphemisms like "de-housing" or hitting the "workforce"). For the next three years, this would be the policy followed by Bomber Command, and a majority (not all) raids were carried out according to this principle.
How effective was this to reduce the pressures of Allied soldiers fighting on the front lines? How effective was this to aid the ground forces, the ONLY forces which have the ability to end wars?
Answer: there is no objective answer, and it depends more on the "feelings" of most observers, rather than "facts" and data.
Around two years later this policy resulted in one of the most feared German weapon systems NOT eing targetted.
One of the most feared German weapons of WW2 was the Tiger tank, built at the Henschell plant in Kassel. Kassel was "blasted as a whole" in October 1943. The entire city center was destroyed and about 10,000 "enemy" women and kids were burned to a cinder. According to the Area Bombing advocates, it was "a huge success".
The Henschell Plant on the edge of the center of Kassel, a multi-square kilometer complex, was the sole source of Tiger I and II tanks.
Of course, according to the Area Bombing policy, the well-known heavy industrial plant, Henschell wasn't the target of this raid. The selected TARGET AREA this night was the town square, not the stacks of the Henshell plant. An indirect result of the raid was that Tiger production rose from 1943 (650 built) to 1944 (around 1000 Tiger I and II).
I assume the young Allied soldiers, who were blown to bits on the battlefields by weapons which could have been destroyed in the factories if the right decisions had been made in 1942, were not amused. Despite bombing the sh*t out of city centers (or,...maybe BECAUSE of bombing city centers), German armament production rose dramatically until the final quarter of 1944.
Why are there are still people who revere men like Portal and Harris as "far sighted"?
Their decisions indirectly led to the needless deaths of scores of OWN soldiers.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Syrup Forever LOL...no.
Not in that "specific way".
I meant broad strokes.
Way back I made a very accurate prediction about how the Ukraine crisis would evolve. I was watching the last day of the Winter Olympics, and the closing ceremony, and I told my opposite in the debate that "as soon as this parade is over, the shit is going to hit the fan".
He laughed.
I then told him that because the Winter Olympics were going on, Putin was holding back, and that as soon as it was over, Russian forces were going to invade, there was going be western support for Kiev, and that the Ukraine was going to blow up into a proxy civil war, lasting 15-20 years.
My opposite mocked...
In fact, the only thing I missed back then was that Putin would annex the Krim.
Give me another example, and I'll give it my best shot, and I'll tell which human nature will steer this process.
3
-
3
-
@9863-k2k What you consider as a priority, is not relevant in the "big games" power politicians play. What Washington DC wants, is people with different political concepts, which Washington DC can then steer against each other.
Washington DC does not care what you think, and I can prove it. When the "two peoples" in the Ukraine, as a "pro-West vs. pro-Russia" factions, desired a peaceful solution for the Ukraine after the year 2010 or so, Washington did not consider them "two people." Washington said: YOU, are all ONE.
Washington DC did not advocate for the creation of an autonomous region, or a seperate state for those who wished to be "pro-Russia." Suddenly, the border was THE only thing important, for Washington DC. People did not matter. LINES mattered. The political views of millions did not matter. Strategists saw the opportunity to set these two people up against each other, and that is what they did.
You think these people care about YOU?
These Washington DC players play with money (interests), their priorities matter, Taiwan is the casino, and YOU are the "chips."
3
-
3
-
Hasan is right.
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Please comment.
But, errr....no "fluffy emotions"....please....
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
No, not really.
A Germany, with most of Central Europe as Axis partners, and able to import everything it needed, and 100% focused on one frontline, would have defeated the SU.
It did not happen, because the British policy for the continent was that no single country should have full control over the entire continent.
Google "British policy of Balance of Power".
To achieve this, they used "divide and rule", like they did in their colonies. They would create friction between the different countries (for example Versailles) by drawing random borders. Then, the resulting infighting would keep their Empire safe.
Furthermore, their entire effort was directed at keeping an area of Central Europe known as the Heartland (google Mackinder Heartland theory) divided. In no way should a single hegemony control this area, since it would (in theory) unhinge the balance in the world, leading to the Empire collapsing.
Fast forward to 1945-1950, and Stalin had the Heartland, and Empire disintegrated bit by bit.
Churchill desperately tried to avoid this (google Operation Unthinkable), but the Americans kinda liked the idea of the British Empire collapsing, and refused.
Europe was carved up.
100 000 000 commie slaves for Stalin.
Thanks a lot, Churchill....
Great show 'murica...
3
-
3
-
3
-
The Herero Genocide, as told by a British Empire (apologist) historian.
From wiki: "The original inhabitants of what is now Namibia were the San and the Khoekhoe. The Herero ... were originally a group of cattle herders who migrated into what is now Namibia during the mid-18th century. The Herero seized vast swaths of the arable upper plateaus which were ideal for cattle grazing. Agricultural duties ... were assigned to enslaved Khoisan and Bushmen. Over the rest of the 18th century, the Herero slowly drove the Khoisan into the dry, rugged hills to the south and east."
Oh I see. The Herero were invaders and slavery fanboys, in search of lebenstraum...
Guess who started it?
"The newcomers, much taller and more fiercely warlike than the indigenous Khoisan people, were possessed of the fierceness... Regarding the care and protection of their herds, the Herero showed themselves utterly merciless, and far more 'savage' than the Khoisan had ever been..." (wiki)
Of course, the poor inhabitants who were there first, and were brutalized and enslaved by militarist foreign invaders, needed protection. Therefore, in order to keep the peace "In 1890 Maharero's son, Samuel, signed a great deal of land over to the Germans in return for helping him to ascend to the Ovaherero throne, and to subsequently be established as paramount chief.[29][31] German involvement in ethnic fighting ended in tenuous peace in 1894.[32]"
The German peacemakers tried and tried and tried their pure-hearted best, but unfortunately the nasty Herero didn't want peace.
A little later...
"In that year, Theodor Leutwein became governor of the territory, which underwent a period of rapid development, while the German government sent the Schutztruppe (imperial colonial troops) to pacify the region..." (wiki)
Always just wanting peace, building roads and schools, the Germans only had the best intentions for the impoverished poor people by developing the lands, and looking for a better life for themselves and their families.
Nothing wrong with that, right?
Let's skip a few embarassing details OPERATION LEGACY-style by dumping a few files into the ocean, and continue...
"For many years, the Herero population had fallen in the habit of borrowing money from colonist moneylenders ... (but) most Herero had no means to pay... In the absence of hard cash, traders often seized cattle, or whatever objects of value they could get their hands on, as collateral." (wiki)
Well, that's not a nasty practice. That's capitalism, so blame capitalism. It was obviously also the greedy locals who were at fault, not the pure-hearted money lenders (finger pointing vigorously). Whatabout being the master of one's own actions?
Let's burn some more embarassing details OPERATION LEGACY-style, and continue...
"The Herero revolted in early 1904, killing between 123 and 150 German settlers, as well as seven Boers and three women ..."
WELL WELL
Guess who started it again?
How long must kindhearted peace-loving settlers put up with these warlike savage people, who constantly invaded their neighbors' peaceful lands, and considered stealing from the weak as fair?
They obviously thought they could terrorize and kill everybody else, and nobody could ever kill them back.
Even worse, as the brave Germans who were outnumbered 10 to 1 suffered defeats as they fought for peace and stability, and Leutwein (German leader) ... "sent desperate messages to the Herero chief Samuel Maherero in hopes of negotiating an end to the war...The Hereros, however, were emboldened by their success and had come to believe that, "the Germans were too cowardly to fight in the open," and rejected Leutwein's offers of peace.[53]" (wiki)
A typical way these Herero fought: "A Herero warrior ... described his people's traditional way of dealing with suspects, a treatment which, during the uprising, was regularly extended to German soldiers and civilians, "We came across a few Khoisan whom of course we killed. I myself helped to kill one of them. First we cut off his ears, saying, 'You will never hear Herero cattle ... ' Then we cut off his nose, saying, 'Never again shall you smell ... And finally we cut his throat." (wiki)
Of course that means THEY WERE ALL THE SAME.
There were simply no exceptions to the rule.
If they lived in a Herero village THEY WERE THE ENEMY, and everything goes...
They obviously deserved everything they got.
Obviously, the only language such people understood is to receive MORE THAN THE MEASURE...
What did the so-called "poor innocent Herero civilians" do while their soldiers cut off ears and noses for the entertainment of the torturers? Obviously, every single one of them was in on it, because they did not revolt against their leaders.
No revolt = they were fully in accord with these actions.
Totally logical and reasonable way of thinking, "British Historian"-style...
They asked for Total War, and they got it.
German Bomba Trotha came, and it was decided to take off the silk gloves.
The Germans fought hard in the hills, and on the beaches, and in the fields, as their rifles SPIT-FIRE and they prevailed: "By late spring of 1904, German troops were pouring into the colony. In August 1904, the main Herero forces were surrounded and crushed at the Battle of Waterberg..." (wiki)
Wow.
Such bravery by such a few.
Finally after years of humiliating defeats, endless hardships, Herero terror and torture, and all the while only defending themselves, their fellow peaceful settlers and other kindhearted local tribes, there was finaly peace again. The Herero just had to be stopped by all means possible, because they wanted to rule the world.
Thank you Germany, for stopping them...
Imagine a map of Africa, now draw a few "advancing lines" on it about "HOW THE HERERO INTENDED TO RULE THE WORLD", and imagine what would have happened had they reached Europe. I shudder to think.
Everybody in Europe would be speaking Herero now.
Thank you, thank you Germany.
We must all bow down and praise every single German on the planet for their sacrifice for all eternity...
Never before in the history of mankind, had so few done so much to save so many.
Skip a few more inconvenient details, OPERATION LEGACY-style...
Unfortunately, it was the fault of the Herero's crazy/psychopathic leaders who refused to give up when they could, and who mislead their own people in their pursuit of living space: leading them into the desert where some unfortunately died a natural death (starvation).
Burn a few more files hummdeee dum...HINT, HINT.... OPERATION LEGACY-style. Why spoil a nice story?
Honestly, who wants to know about a few "re-education centers" and "happy villages" where these terrorists and torturers were turned into decent human beings?
Who wants to know about the few locals whose bodies benefited all of humanity? (aka "medical experiments"). They were heroes, because MILLIONS AND GAZILLIONS OF HUMAN LIVES WERE SAVED.
Give them a monument, and move on...
The Herero troublemakers had "sown" for a hundred years, and terrorized their poor neighbors.
They were a militarist warlike people, who had stolen the land they lived on: they sowed the wind, and in 1904/05 they reaped the whirlwind...
After it was all over, none of the Herero knew about the attrocities committed in their names. Hahaha. Sure...
Like yeah...didn't they notice as their neighbors got rounded up?
Today the Herero are nice people, but back then they just had to be taught a lesson they would never forget.
And thus ends the nice story of the Herero Genocide, as told by a British Empire (apologist) historian...
3
-
3
-
Excellent discussion.
The "big picture" is even bigger than discussed here, but even has historical parallels in strategy.
Japan, after the mid-19th century, in 1951, in 1960 (MOFA), and just two days ago (Wednesday).
Snuggling up to power.
History repeating.
Using Japan at the turn of the previous century as an example we can explain how powers with a superior geographical location and in a better financial position, and with a more advanced industrial and technological stand, can build up proxies and then encourage them to do the bidding of the more poweful bigger partner. Naturally a "proxy" is always smaller than the "big brother" (benefactor in strategy) so that offers a convenient opening for the narrative of "only protecting weaker people", by simply changing the perspective. Proxies are often termed as "alliance partners" which need protection, but such alliances could result in a deadly outcome for the minor power, in case the power imbalance and geographical distinctions are not suitably applied in logic and reasoning. This reality of the proxy for US interests (perspective) is often bluntly stated, or blurted out as a perceived given "right" by advocates of American Exceptionalism, and has a long tradition. It is expressed by these individuals as seemingly "normal" that smaller countries or systems should do the bidding of America, but exasperation is proclaimed if it turns out these previously built up proxies have own interests.
A current example of this is stated by Congressman Dan Crenshaw (see below footnote) seemingly thinking it is "normal" other human beings in other systems (Ukraine) should be considered worthwhile "investment potential" to further US interests.
Japan, of course another "useful tool" (strategy) on one axis of advance of the system America, as "going west" after her War of Independence, and not stopping when it got to the Pacific Ocean. The system kept on going towards the Far East in a systemic way: That of gain for the own entities in the form of institutions and corporations, even if not necessarily always with the intent of direct political rule. The other axis was of course mainly going south into the Americas, with the Monroe Doctrine as a soft power reciprocal engagement of systems using strategies and "tools" here too (like Simon Bolivar, was of course a "proxy" to weaken the Spanish Empire ), with the clear advantage going to the major power, Washington DC.
After the generally considered "start" of American Imperialism with the Spanish-American War, Washington DC took on a European power for the first time, even though at the time this fit in perfectly with the narrative of "protection" for the unfortunate weak peoples of Central America (battle of the minds), whilst still fitting the premise of "going further westwards" as seen from the perspective of North America, and geopolitics. Note that Winston Churchill later candidly pointed out what "protecting poor people" really meant***. "Protection" often only meant the "proxy" for own gain, as Churchill clearly understood, since that is what all European empires also claimed to be doing. Desirable strategically located Spanish overseas territories for military bases, like the Philippenes or Guam, lay on the most direct trade routes across the Pacific...
Apparently history is not a lesson some people will ever learn from.
The historical examples as given by wiser Irish leaders, who refused to become proxies as they fought for own goals, lost on these strategists.
And so history repeats:
- A closed system, lured out of isolation...check.
- A kindled imperialism, hoping for territorial gain...check.
- A tool which could be used to encroach on the "big brother's" rival...check.
- An instrument of power, which would burn for the advantage of the stronger power...check.
- Massively increased military spending...check.
- Another system's tax payers, bearing the burden...check.
- Ambitious local leaders striving to build a large, modern navy...yet again. Check...
History repeating.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Like R.E.H. Dyer, the "hero" of the Amritsar Massacre, Harris was a grave digger of the British Empire.
Dyer "only" ordered to open fire on a few 1,000 victims.
Harris ordered to "open fire" on hundreds of thousands.
Dyer was given a hero's welcome when he returned, and was showered with "crowd funded" Pounds of admiration, by a horde of Empire apologists...
Today, weak historians make arguments for weak minds.
With Lubeck, Rostock, Dresden, Darmstadt, Wurzburg, and other over the top actions to appease the "revenge/reap as you sow/whirlwind"-slogan chanters, European states/empires as powers in a multipolar world which had dominated world affairs till then, was destroyed.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? LOL...
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries.
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
Sad...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books.
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source)
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies.
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
EPISODE I:
"... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
EPISODES II thru IV:
Lotsa other stuff happening.
EPISODE V:
If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003
Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice.
Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power.
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Start pulling the rug from underneath their feet...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The concept of racism can easily be incorporated into a comprehensive divide-and-rule strategy.
BRITISH EMPIRE
Growing up in South Africa, one is quickly introduced to the concept of "dual loyalties" in the form of a joke or a cartoon: that of the "soutpiel". Every child knew it, and joked about it. I'll leave to the reader to ask a South African friend what that means. In a nutshell, it is the dual loyalty of people living in Africa, with their loyalties divided between Europe and Africa, meaning that their...ahem...the "future" was left dangling in the Atlantic Ocean. Every child in South Africa knew it, but not every child understood it.
"SOUTPIEL": A GRAND STRATEGY/GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Note that first and foremost, the jokers in South Africa actually became a victim of their own misguided logic: whilst the old immigrants were finger pointing at the new British immigrants with mixed loyalties from Great Britain after the 1820s, they were actually of mixed loyalty themselves on another tier. The Boers' hearts might have been beating in Africa, but in their minds they were still better Europeans as they practiced divide-and-rule themselves, over their neighbors, keeping these neighbors "down" and "out" of power. . Therefore they never managed the close relationships on equal footing, or at eye level, to those they subjected (indigenous black tribes). Then, much later they were overpowered by exactly this same misguided logic they had previously imposed on their neighbors whom they wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule and wealth (divide-and-rule onto and over the weaker local tribes, easily divided using tribalism). Unlike South American empires (Aztecs/Incas), who had not an iota of knowledge of the European Empires and their ability to REACH globally, for the South African strategists there was NO excuse. They should have known what future they themselves should have constructed for Southern Africa, because they had full access to the histories of the lands they originally came from (Europe). The "dividers" of a geographical region are hardly ever open to any suggestions of systemic UNITY/CONCORD, if they themselves GAIN from DIVISION/DISCORD, until they are later divided themselves, and subjected. The story of mankind. Can we blame the indigenous black tribes for not uniting when the first white settlers arrived in their territories? No, because just like the indigenous Native Americans, these individual tribes simply lacked the organisation and technology to observe/analyse beyond their own limited horizons. For the Boers, who HAD this knowledge, their own ideology acted as a block in the own brains. The land borders were shaped in the brains of "superior white man" (sic.), not on the map, which then later backfired. Because of a lack of combined AFRICAN UNITY, justice, power, and a fair distribution of wealth and the land, by ALL inhabitants and FOR all inhabitants (round tables), a bigger "DIVIDER" came along and ruled them all after the Second Boer War...
Unlike after the French came to the Cape Colony and the Boers simply "trekked" their way out, when the British Empire came for them, there was nowhere left for the Boers to run to, since they had settled and had been surrounded on all sides by European empires (British Empire, and Portugal/Mozambique).
The above can also serve as template for the Levant/Middle East, and all the artificial borders drawn by empires OVER the peoples living there, as top-down imperialistic divide-and-rule strategy. Just like Southern Africa (region), West Asia had MORE THAN sufficient resources to create a decent lifestyle for ALL the inhabitants, and therefore ask yourself the critical question "Qui Bono?" if there is an "Apartheid"-style division by a few, for the benefit of a few? (Apartheid = divide-and-rule, as top-down implementation. Apart = seperate = divide.)
Southern Africa = Between the sea and the sea (Indian/Atlantic) and should have included ALL peoples who lived here. The "barriers" were in the brain, to the detriment of all when the "dividers" came.
Arabian Peninsula = Between the sea and the sea (Mediterranean/Indian Oceans) and should have included ALL peoples who lived here. The "barriers" were in the brain, to the detriment of all when the "dividers" came.
Historically, who gained from DIVISION?
Who would have gained from a fair UNITY in Southern Africa, and on the Arabian Peninsula, when the faraway "empires" came? Surprized that the entire text is headed "BRITISH EMPIRE" but doesn't say much related to the British Empire? Oh yes, it does. Because it is exactly the same technique a bigger outside empire (American Century) employed on Europe as it overpowered the British Empire: the divide-and-rule technique, the most powerful force on the planet.
---------------------------------------------
Look over the horizon. Eurasia. When carrying out a geopolitical analysis, do not make the same mistakes as Africa's black tribes, and the Boers, and Native Americans, and Incas and Aztecs, and the Chinese rulers during their "Century of Humiliation", and many many more all over the world, who all failed to look past the limited horizons open to them. YOUR "horizons" are given to you by the texts in your own history books, which intend to LIMIT your horizon, not open it.
Treaty of Versailles = Divide and rule of and over neighbors (Europe/Eurasia), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbors whom the dividers wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weakened local systems who "lost the war" and which they wished to create top down). European leaders who did not understand the logic of Chesterton's fence, and destroyed what they did not understand. Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such agreements/accords?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Chesterton%27s_fence
Abrahamic Accords = Divide and rule of and over direct neighbors (Arabian Peninsula), to enable the implementation of Israel's "Clean Break" policy (divide-and-rule strategy) and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbors whom they wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weaker local systems). Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such agreements/accords?
The leaders of West Asia are all "soutpiele" (divided loyalties) as long as they bow down to outside interests and value their own vested interests before the interests of the entire region (oil resources which had been turned into US/EU/Swiss assets for a few over the span of 50 years, past the well-being of the majority of the own peoples).
One of the biggest misconceptions of history is the ability of the ideologically/systemically indoctrinated to view themselves as unique, whereas as a general rule their own histories rhyme with other historical events, based on the systemic analysis. The will to keep the own systems APART from their neighbors (divided by ideology and rulings) always backfires, when one is no longer "King of the Mountain" (strategy of power). By the time everything implodes, the rulers/dividers are long gone, having previously brought their own wealth and families to safe havens.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage.
Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating families. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Never a "price tag" for own actions...
Right?
WRONG
Brits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends".
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"...
And after the war ended?
They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946).
Did they ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not.
Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next.
Hop, hop, hop...into extinction.
Sad...
A "nation" which needs to bomb women and kids to "have hope" or inspiration even during hard times, does not deserve to "rule the world".
The post-WW2 bankrupcy was not only financial, but also moral...
Good riddance to "ruling the world" then.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think (§§footnote) today.
Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer of and over continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers.
These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology).
Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.
Has it ever occured to a viewer that if a policy or strategy "divided Europeans" with a "ruling" (Versailles Treaty), that it actually fits the definition of the the "divide and rule" technique?
The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group.
After WW2 the "Versailles attitude" of "dividing Europeans with "rulings" continued, with the Truman Doctrine.
Churchill of course, not in power anymore, announced the divide and rule strategy with his "Iron Curtain speach" a year before.
The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely.
§§ Think = As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the systems/strategies tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Germany was not "bombed to defeat", but was successfully invaded and, ultimately beat by ground forces.
The strategic bombing campaign played a role, but was not even near to being worthwhile "return on the investment".
Had the effort put into building up the strategic air forces instead been invested into proper tanks, APCs or other forms, the war would have been over sooner...
The "recalled fighters" argument.
Firstly, the recalled fighter were single engine day fighters, recalled due the the arrival and threat posed by the USAAF, not Bomber Command.
Secondly, since one should only opposed to the use of soldiers fighting against civilians, and not strategic bombing in general, the efforts the Germans undertook to counter US daylight raids should not flow into this comparison. Therefore, the Germans would have needed to invest the resources they put into defending their cities anyway, even if the RAF had decided to bomb only valid military or strategic targets with token forces. Bear in mind, that the Germans would have needed to protect their industrial centers with a similar effort of AA guns and Flak soldiers, even if ONLY valid targets had ever been chosen.
GB and the Commonwealth which could have redirected a large part on their resources on more pressing worries (for example defeating the submarines with an all out effort in 1942 instead of mid-1943, which would have saved thousands of sailors lives and millions of tons of supplies) Many ships in convoys could have been saved, if the efforts had been focused on escort carriers with Swordfish aircraft.
3
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," buy 2nd hand quality products, or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Boycott, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting all "big brands". Thank you Croatia. Join DANAS! Boycott them all.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This is nothing new. For 100 years, settler colonists (Irgun, Lehi, Palmach, etc.) cooperating with the hegemon, carried out such practices of harassment, trying to coerce the original inhabitants to flee so they could occupy the land.
A hundred years ago the British Empire dispatched psychos like Orde Wingate (Special Night Squads) who took pleasure in random shootings, or waterboarding opposition to the British Empire in oil, sending the tortured back to their villages to report about the actions of their oppressors.
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron Bushell have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined.
Don't delay.
Start today.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
How did the USA go from an obscure colony to the world's nr.1 in the space of a relatively short time.
To discover how it happened in "a blink of an eye" on the timeline of modern history, let's go next level.
The impact of strategies on history.
These strategies are universal, and it therefore does not matter who one quotes, in which era, or what level of society or politics one refers to (micro- v. macro level dynamics in hierarchies).
"Observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership." Deng Xiaoping
To loosely quote strategy, Washington DC just had to wait long enough until their rivals messed up.
On the "empires"-level the USA's strategy starting around 1900 was fairly simple:
1) keep European powers as "divided" as possible, implemented by whatever means possible, but mainly using favoratism.
2) wait for ALL the others to fail.
Would such a strategy, whether planned or the unintentional effect of prior actions guarantee a success? Answer: NO
There is never a guarantee for anything in strategy, but if one has the geographical advantage (distance from squibbling Europeans, coupled with an own rising population, raw materials, a rapidly gathering industrial/financial base, increased education = increased innovation, all constituting "power"), then the US elites in their "preferred system" of corporatism could simply sit it out.
What was effected by favoratism was a "pecking order" of "friends" with access to Washington DC.
It does not matter how one justifies this political pecking order, because "justified" = an appeal to emotion = difficult to objectify.
What is important, is THAT a pecking order of European powers with access to Washington DC was established over a relatively short time around the year 1900.
Note here: A little-known detail is that one of the first US choices in this "pecking order" of European powers was actually Imperial Russia (by the Theodore Roosevelt administration). Why would the USA possibly "favor" Russia as a "choice"?
My suggestion: Look at a map every now and then, and consider the European balance of power at the times, and the aims and goals of these European powers at the time...
Is this an unimportant little detail, because it "did not happen"? No, this is VERY important, because it reveals strategies.
Simply saying "it did not happen, therefore it is not important" is a gross misrepresentation of history, which will then result in a gross misrepresentation of current events.
Any European division = a so-called "win - win" for the USA.
To the USA it did not matter what happened in Europe.
Whether Europeans ended up happily singing Kumbayah, or tore each other to shreds...it would be a "win" for somebody in the American Century. As long as there was no common European policy or overly powerful alliance in a comprehensive European security agreement (of sorts) which could potentially be directed at US plans to expand, there was nothing on the "elite"-level in the USA to worry about...
Note also that all of the above solely deals with the "elite"-level, so there is no need for anybody to feel personally offended.
Since no elites ever asked the "average American", there is also no need for any "average American" to feel offended on behalf of these decision makers, unless they choose to be. Also true, for all historical and current events, and for all citizens of all states.
3
-
3
-
@matsjonsson9492 Hitchens defense of the invasion of Iraq was absurd, because he doesn't understand the concept of "balance of power".
He died before he could realise the full impact of his naive notion that military aggression (Google "war of choice") is an answer to the internal political oppression of a 3rd party state.
Before the 2003 invasion, the ME was perfectly balanced.
Removing the "weight" of Iraq", and taking the lid from the pressure cooker of opposing religious fractions vying for influence (Iraq was a secular state) is what caused the current sh*tstorm, but the hawks simply ignored these pre war warnings with their naive and dumb "sow democracy seeds"-- rhetoric.
They were warned by smarter people before the attack that it would go wrong, and I was one of them.
Knowledge and the deeper understanding can head off making big mistakes.
Your attitude of "poor little Bush and poor little Blair didn't have a choice" is pathetic.
How can you look at the current mess, and still defend a dumb decision, sold as lies to the people?
Wrong. They had a choice, and made the wrong one.
The Saddam Husseins of this world disappeared all by themselves (Franco in Spain, etc.).
Stating that the people who suffered under his rule should be happy about the "democracy" they live in now and forget about the millions of victims and billions in destroyed assets (and livelihoods) as some apologists for militarism do is not only disingenuous, it is truly pathetic...
You are a militarist. Correct?
You are as transparent as glass, Mats....
3
-
3
-
Start pulling the rug from underneath their feet...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
3
-
3
-
3
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS/GLOBALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS/MILITARISTS. Their branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
3
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The instigators like best buddies Harris, Portal, Trenchard and Churchill went waaaay back. They had no problems terror bombing women and children in Iraq during the 1920s, in "ops" euphemistically called "air policing", and kept a secret from the general public back home.
It was justified by the elites in London as "a cheap alternative to land forces".
So what did the citizens of Iraq ever do to GB? Or neighbors? Or did they invade anyone to "deserve it" too?
From historynet:
"Air policing is a relatively simple strategy. Aircraft operating out of well-defended airfields are supported by fast-moving armored car squadrons. When an outlying village or isolated tribe refused to pay taxes or ignored the central government, airplanes would be dispatched to strafe and bomb the offending group. Trenchard explained he could achieve results more cheaply with his RAF squadrons..."
Such fun, terror bombing and strafing civilians, cowering in tents and simple villages made of mud and stone. Such a "great opportunity" (sic.) to test new weapons, like delay action bombs (time fuses), or fragmentation bomblets on innocent civilians...
Once a terror bombing fanboy, always a terror bombing fanboy.
Their pathetic empire's HQ back home in London, Bristol, Coventry, Hull, Birmingham, etc., etc. would one day "reap" as it "sowed", a hundred times over...
Well.
Who would've guessed the 2,000-year old biblical logic counts for all...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@baahcusegamer4530 Bismarck's "something silly in the Balkans" has morphed into "something silly in the Ukraine".
Of course, Bismarck's quote is in reference to the age-old "contested sphere of influence", and big power ambitions.
At the time it was the Balkans.
Today it is the Black Sea/Ukraine, or simply "shifted east Balkans"-Bismarkian logic.
Of course the Ottoman Empire was not Europe's only "sick man" at the time.
The Ottoman Empire was weak, and therefore a favorite on "the European good guys" with their "shopping lists"-mentality.
Of course, the "always on the right side of history"-good guys have one main goal: "carving up" weakness.
That goal is eternal, always searching for weakness.
Of course in the late 19th-century, the Ottomans weren't the only failing empire, desperately trying to hold together their own past accomplishments (previously gained by a mixture of blood and diplomacy).
There were two others.
Of course Spain was the first weak empire on the American Internationalist's own "no more Monroe Doctrine restrictions"-shopping list of suitable weak empires.
The American Century needed divided "weany libruls" to succeed in their quest.
Easily explained empire 101...
Europe's other "sick man" was Austria-Hungary, and Berlin adamantly refused to throw her to the wolves.
Bad bad Berlin ...the "good guys" had an appetite and came with a vengeance.
Dissed girlfriend Russia of course intented to encircle Austria-Hungary, using the "poor people"-argument (aka "Pan Slavism").
And in the respect of "losing favored status" in the good guys' with their eternal games of divide and rule (favoratism):
Russia today.
Not such fun getting encroached upon, as Russia once did to "sick man" Austria-Hungary, and having own security issues ignored by the eternal good guys, right?
Not so great having historical spheres of influence carved up by "ICEBREAKER NATO" paving the way to new profitable EU/PNAC markets, eh?
Shouting "poor me" in "the game" of default good guys/default bad guys, when own interests to dominate and rule over others, using human lives as "tools" not working out anymore?
Why don't your leaders roll out the old "protector of all slavs"-trope again, hmmmm?
Suddenly "Russian power" as a "tool" don't suite the "good guys" anymore, and the own Moscow interests ("security issues": remember that term for a while) get thrown out the back door.
Not so much fun anymore when you are "in the shoes" of others, right?
What happened to those eternal dreams of access to the Med for your navy and the own projection of power (Mahan)? Today Russia doesn't even fully control the Black Sea anymore, and St Petersburg/Moscow geostategic goals/aims have been thrown back over the last 30 years, step by step, back 200 years to the 18th century when it all started.
Not such fun if one isn't on the "default good guy list" anymore...
Today, Moscow's dream of "top down influence in Turkey" (Erdogan/Turkish state access to the Med, janking Turkey out of NATO) is being countered by western economical warfare on the Turkish state. Watch on while the next bloody "bottom up" orange revolution is being set up by "the good guys" with the cash, creating the next "poor people"-argument for the primed/conditioned masses back home in front of their TVs...impervious in regards to "what happened". They just want the feelgood story, so too bad...
Back to "good ol' days" when Imperialist Russia was still "best fwiends":
Of course during the "good ol' days" of "friendly entente Russia", St. Petersburg/Russia could appease Belgrade in their quest of destabilising their neighboring state (Austria-Hungary) in their violent nationalist quest for Nacertanije and carving up Austria-Hungary. St Petersburg could try to misuse known Serb ambitions for Greater Serbia (openly known since 1906) for the own goal of destabilising the Balkans for own geopolitical goals (access to the Med via the Dardanelles), as the "entente good guys" turned a blind eye. Being a "good guy" herself, Russia could set out to misuse Serbs as a "human wall" in lieu of overly obvious direct state influence, to stop a potential alliance between Berlin and the Ottoman Empire becoming viable. The "usefull tool" aka "Entente partner" St Petersburg had the tacid permission and could appease Belgrade and convert the previous Austrian-Hungarian sphere of influence (Serbia) into a "tool" to create a security issue for Austria-Hungary (potential two-front war danger for Vienna/Budapest).
Note how the "good guys" create "poor people"-arguments directed at Moscow today, the same way that the predecessor St. Petersburg created "poor people"-arguments against the object of their desire...Austria-Hungary.
The "regular run" of history is of course that "poor slavs" trapped in an Imperialist Russia (conquered, brutalized and oppressed) is perfectly OK, but Serbs trapped in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire just screams for a "historical adjustment". Go figure...
Anyway.
What happened to these "party times" when the good guys told you you could do no harm?
Doesn't everybody just love becoming encroached upon and encircled?
Let's ask Russians today how they feel about "encroachment/encirclement".
Not so nice, eh?
(Google "hypocrisy")
The same "security issues" St Petersburg once created for Austria-Hungary, suddenly don't sound so "cool" anymore, when the shoe is on the other foot.
Biblical history (and 2,000-year old observations re. human nature), unfolding again, right in front of our eyes.
3
-
3
-
How our leaders avoid "avoiding war", and then fabricate a racket...in three easy steps.
Step 1:
Engineer a situation, or take on a standpoint one would never accept as "acceptable", if placed in the same situation oneself, and refuse to budge. Ignore all warnings.
Step 2:
Watch on as the situation deteriorates.
Find a few "good fwiends", who "see things the same way", and refuse to budge.
Send around a few good guys, who will try their best...
Ignore all further warnings.
As "crisis" turns to gloom, do as little as you can possibly get away with.
Especially, don't sign anything worded in such a way that it would actually avoid war.
Step 3:
When the guns start firing: Here comes the most important step. Do as the Bible says (lol) and point the finger everywhere else, and wash own hands in innocence (using the easy "Pontius Pilate"-way out).
3
-
Alternatives?
We in the west shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win). In other words, just as much Lend-Lease as needed, but not enough for the commie to storm all the way into Central Europe.
We should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary to aid D-Day, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why shouldn't it have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion?
Because we owed Stalin nothing.
Not single Jeep and not a single Studebaker truck, carrying commies into Central Europe by the millions.
Not a single drop of blood.
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
So our leaders sacrificed own soldiers, own resources, and millions of own dollars, to hand over half the world to the commies. Only to end up fighting them in the other half for the next fifty years. Korea, Vietnam, the ME. Thousands of body bags of "our boys".
Rather silly to "help Stalin" don't you think?
3
-
3
-
3
-
Comparing the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 to the Treaty of Franfort of 1871 is one of the more popular memes of amateur historians. One often sees this "tit for tat"-logic on YT. There is however little to compare, beyond reparations and territory (Alsace-Lorraine).
Let's have a look at what Prussia (or rather the newly formed Germany) did not do to France, a nation which had both declared war first, and invaded/attacked first in 1870.
1. It did NOT take away the entire French navy.
2. It did NOT take away all the French colonies.
3. It did NOT take away almost the entire French merchant marine.
4. It did NOT cut off parts of France, in order to give it to nations which never even fought (for example "cutting off" the Basque Lands, to hand over to Spain).
5. It did NOT create new artificial states to surround France, and to subsequently create new alliances with (For example "free" Corsica, and then subsequently created a German-Corsican alliance as an official "encirclement policy")
6. It did NOT cut off 15% of the French population, and simply "awarded" them to new, artificial, and independent states, leaving French citizen to travel across a foreign state in order to visit friends and relatives..
7. It did NOT steal pre-war French economical concessions, or French markets, which enabled France (the aggressor) to pay her reparations without the need of excessive foreign debts.
8. It did NOT eclipse the entire French economic sphere of influence in the world, leaving her economy with only France proper to deliver goods to.
9. It did NOT force France to destroy coastal fortresses in the Mediterranean Sea (I kid thee not, Versailles had a clause concerning German coastal fortresses in the Baltic)
In fact, France was (hint hint) even invited to the negotiations, and allowed to make counter arguments, resulting in concessions to the French side (for example, the status of the city of Belfort) in the Treaty of Frankfort in 1871.
1871, and 1919 just cannot be compared...
"Apples and oranges"-style comparisons to deflect from what really happened.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
After WW1, the London lords thought that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire.
In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies...
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe those London lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
Long before that, an own policy called Policy of Balance of Power made Germans the enemy as a default setting.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
A policy which made the strongest continental power the "rival in peace/enemy in war" as the default setting, irrelevant of right or wrong.
Ah well. Too bad.
So the London lords stiff-upper-lipped their crumbling Empire into extinction...
3
-
British and French leaders went to Versailles under the rather childish illusion that the SU and Germany would stay weak forever and ever and ever....
They ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too. Crumbling between the "hammer" of communism and the anvil of the American Century.
Sad.
Too sad...
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
3
-
3
-
3
-
To a neutral observer, the term "imperialist power" is a neutral term, and not affiliated with any particular power, but rather revealed by the actions of powers. Therefore the WW2 "carving up" of the Korean Peninsula was an act of imperialist powers (USA, GB, SU), who simply clashed soon after the "mutual old enemy" (fascist powers) had been defeated. Both "sides" intended to use the local populations on useful areas of the map for future expansion, and each side had the own "good side/bad side" narrative. Who lost out, due a loss of own power? The peoples who lived on the area of interests of the outside powers.
The people of Korea, who have been divided and ruled over ever since WW2, after having previously been the playball of empires which surrounded them (European empires with interests in China and the Far East, Russia, Japan, and the later joined by the USA).
Staging areas and the "marching routes" of empires.
Definition: "In military uses, a staging area is a place where troops or equipment in transit are assembled or processed.[1]
The US Department of Defense uses these definitions: (DOD) 1. Amphibious or airborne-A general locality between the mounting area and the objective of an amphibious or airborne expedition, through which the expedition or parts thereof pass after mounting, for refuelling, regrouping of ships, and/or exercise, inspection, and redistribution of troops. (DOD) 2. Other movements-A general locality established for the concentration of troop units and transient personnel between movements over the lines of communications ...[2] Often and historically this military staging area has been termed a point d'appui ... Unlike normal bases, the facilities of a staging area are temporary, mainly because for a certain time it will hold much more troops and material than would be reasonable in peacetime. Militaries use staging areas to deploy military units, aircraft and warships plus their materiel ahead of an attack or invasion. In former times this used to be generally the border area of one's own country, but in recent wars (Gulf War, Kosovo War, Iraq War) it may also be the border area of another unrelated country granting access." (source: https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Staging_area)
In the last part, the description is not entirely correct, since globally available staging areas are not a modern phenomena. In former times empires always employed such "direct or indirect" staging areas far away from the own heartlands as points on the axis of advance of their own empires. A "staging area" is not defined in extent: in the battlefield context of "battlefield tactics" it could be a town or field for the assembly of troops and vehicles, but in its largest form in grand strategy it can be entire countries or whole islands for massive armies, navies or air forces. The advantage of a staging area meant "no storming of beaches facing direct enemy fire", and probably the most famous example of such a staging area was the UK during World War 2, used for the gradual build-up of British and Empire forces, as well as the orderly arrival of allies like the US armed forces before D-Day in 1944: all in relative safety.
Such staging areas are often termed "unsinkable aircraft carriers". Staging areas are often referred to using colloquial expressions, or human body parts, in order to facilitate understanding of the concept: for example, Napoleon coined the term "pistol pointing at the heart of England" (heartland of the enemy) for Antwerp as jumping off point for a large invasion fleet, and therefore explains the reason why Belgium was created and given a permanent neutral status within a "concert" of nations, as a way to help avoid future wars by understanding the fears of another power, and addressing these fears in a decent manner. It is a part of military strategy, and since a large part of history of empires deals with military strategies, it is also necessary to delve into the subject matter, analyse historical events, in order not to become mislead or the "useful tool" in the propaganda campaigns of the present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_strategies_and_concepts
Staging areas will be found on the regions of the planet where states have interests, as the US DoD definition already alludes to by pointing out the Iraq War (staging areas = Israel, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). They are often located in the fracture zones these empires create themselves (Spykman = "crush zones"), as cause/effect of the own policies.
Once one understands the axis of advance of empires, or where these interests are, one also understands the strategies and other sides' counter-strategies and why some regions of the planet historically turned into war zones, others not, or some future regions might become war zones. When coupling the concepts of "staging areas" and the "axis of advance" of empires, or the "marching route" of an empire, it becomes clear why British and Free French forces landed on Madagascar in 1942, in order to prevent it from becoming a Japanese staging area, in case the Japanese Empire intended to expand into the Indian Ocean. Apart from the direct "colonies" or "overseas territories" there are also the staging areas offered by "friendly nation status" afforded by treaties: the "oldest alliance in the world" as Anglo-Portuguese Alliance and based on treaties going back to 1294, stated that under any attack on British territory, that Portugal would "aid" (and vice-versa), and such a form of aid could be offering Portugal as "staging area" for the assembly of Empire forces in case of any attack by a third country, on Gibraltar.
Why Stalin wanted the Limitrophe States (1939) from whoever would sign them away to Communist takeover? It removed the British/French staging area in Poland in case of his own communist expansion southwards into Asia or eastwards into China (2nd Tournament of Shadows) "triggered" a British Empire flank attack or opened an exposed flank in the Baltic States, or Black Sea region, using a friendly power like Poland as a "staging area". Of course, a strategist like Stalin would much rather have these countries as his own buffer zones, when expanding elsewhere.
A few examples make it clear how creating such "staging areas" are a premier basis of expansion, whilst removing such possibilities from rivals are the other: the counter strategy, as recently witnessed in the Solomon Islands (standoff between China and the USA and allies). The territories are again becoming vital in the "shadow tournaments" (geopolitics), in view of BRICS expanding into South America, as they now are, and any future potential military angle to BRICS is already being contested today (all therefore being preventive actions). It also becomes clear why simply creating a neutral country won't work in case the "axis of advance" of the empires are not also addressed via treaties or accords (non aggression pacts, etc.). In other words, it won't help simply creating a neutral country, if these neutral countries then simply offer the "shields" empires intend to advance behind, by setting up their staging areas behind such neutral states or "barrier zones". It will lead to tension in the "spiral model" of diplomacy.
Taiwan, was always a staging area for empires, in a strategic location off the coast of China. The only thing which changed was the hegemons. First for Japan after 1895, because it facilitated the Japanese Empire's advance into China and the Pacific as quarter century later, and today for the USA since US troops are already stationed here even though it is legally still a part of China (International Law). Regardless of emotions, laws are not buffets from which one can cherry pick "favourites" and discard "icky laws" one doesn't like: one either abides by laws, or one doesn't. The side "pushing until something snaps" is clear, as the USA wishes to build up Taiwan as a staging area for its own future interests as its Pacific Rim "outer boundary" on China's doorstep.
Ukraine, and "NATO encroachment" after 1991 (Wolfowitz Doctrine advocating US global primacy):
Empires in advance are always looking for such potential staging areas, and here the recent Ukraine and Taiwan question (post 2000) point out which empires were "pushing" as their strategy, and which empires took a defensive stand.
Empires in defense of own homelands would always choose war to avoid a peacetime setup of such a staging area (see War of 1812 as a preventive US attack on Canada as potential "staging area" for the British Empire as exemplary). These wars are ALWAYS accompanied by a host of excuses, justifications, evtl. "false flags" or simply plain lies, and "WMDs" was not the first time such lies were used to deceive. Another was "Remember the Maine", which used an accident as an MSM narrative was created to point fingers at the "bad guys" (Spain). In reality, the US "marching route" WAS already previously set: form the US East Coast with its old money and industry, via the Caribean, the (to be completed) Panama Canal, US West Coats developments, Hawaii, Philippines, and so on. A look at a large-scale map will help in seeing such "marching routes", and why the "excuses/justifications" are ancillary in order to deceive those who'd have to fight to enlarge the empire.
Last but not least: those who want to "rule the world" are ALWAYS going to point the finger at others, who are equally creating one of two bases for themselves, extraterritorially. Even if they themselves have thousands of such areas, bases, aligned partners, etc. the BIG FINGER will point at any so slight "other side" and then the army of flag- and banners wavers will pick up from there, defending the empire with words. Objectivity has never been a core value of the typical fanboy or empire apologist.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
chained2it You are confusing two terms: 'Historicity' and 'Causality'.
In order for something to be 'causal', there MUST be a connection between and action, and the resulting events.
The one that comes first, MUST cause the next in the chain of events.
(Note, not to be confused with 'correlation')
So when you write "500 years ago Muslims dominated the globe (actually it was the Med and ME, Central Asia)..".
My answer is: nice, there are some ruins and buildings I can visit...
(In other words, NOTHING a Muslim did 500 years ago in Spain, or North Africa, has ANY bearing on world events today)
Muslim domination of the Med, etc. ENDED at the end of WW1. NO causal effects.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
3
-
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."
And if you lie, steal, and kill for division, then that is what you are fighting for.
"We lied. We cheated. We stole" - Mike Pompeo
And, may I add, they are and always were, above all PROUD of all their lies, loot, and deceit all over the globe.
America's "global friends" (incl. the unceded Chinese province of "Taiwan") are burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including all semites in the MENA region) against each other. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) for the template.
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
At 15:55 and "Morocco has brought in settlers," is an old imperial strategy, which even Rome practiced.
It sounds so eerily familiar, since it is a common imperialist strategy of "greatly replacing" (😕) an indiginous population with the own ubermensch ingroup...
In the study of conflict resulting out of the migration of large cultural groups, usually as part of agendas or expansion.
What is presently happening, as a part of a wider conflict going back at least 100 years, is the immigration of a superior culture of lighter skin-colored cultural ingroup, injected onto a darker skin-colored cultural outgroup.
The favored ingroup coming from outside (people born elsewhere) received land, livestock, and a home of sorts, all based on the advantage of having "friends in the right places", and having more resources at hand for the own aims and goals. In return, they become what the USA did during their own expansion into North America, the "farms/forts", which if "shot at" would always be "just defended", or "shooting back" (strategy from the "101 playbook of imperialism" for expansion of the own systems).
The "settler colonist" (system) is the TOOL of expansion.
While the existing population was squeezed out of strategically vital areas one step at a time (arable farmland, for example, or sources of water), the faraway controlling political movement sought widespread support from whoever would give it, specifically from very imperialistic indoctrinated "friendly systems", for the own expansive goals. Real or at least tacid support for the "own -ism" is bought from large organisation, like the UN for example.
People who came with the well-wishing of large portions of the "ingroup"-supporters ("-isms"), or at least indifferent/ignorant of the real issues and therefore largely complacent, created a culture of "settler colonialism", creating a "storyline" that if such a settler colonist is attacked in any way, that they will be "just defending themselves". The original imperialist expansion (industrial/financial/argricultural/mining/raw materials/ideological, etc.), of "settler colonialism" being the cause of conflict, is simply never questioned at all...
Of course, one does not need a cristal ball, or be a Nostradumbass in order to predict that conflict was bound to take place, in view of previously unfolding similar series of historical events, in other places in the world, where people with an "-ism", emboldened by a feeling of cultural superiority, following a prescibed set of steps as strategy, in order to gain a superior political/economic position for the own "tribe" (tribalism).
When one studies the various perspectives about human conflict, one can't help wondering who is most to blame.
Is it:
1) the various enablers and deciders as executive powers? (leaderships)
2) those who saw financial opportunities to exploit, specifically in case troubles/strife ensued? (opportunists)
3) those who wished to proliferate themselves, advance personal carriers, or similar free-riders, but otherwise had no real POWER as executives? (political expediency of choosing sides)
4) the huddled masses without land, who decided to take the lifeline thrown at them, despite knowing that they were imposing on another already existing indigenous population? (chosen ingroup)
5) the indigenous population, mostly equaly "huddled masses" just trying to eke out a living, but who were never asked what they wanted for themselves as collective? (chosen outgroup)
6) any other, or a different order, since this is an open question
It should not be too difficult to conclude that responsibility for the resulting conflict goes pretty much in the order of 1 to 5, with those mostly responsible being the few "deciders" (as 1). These should not only have been in the position to foresee trouble ahead, but also to acknowledge these foreseeable events, and then search alternatives.
Only...
...the unfolding series of events did not take place in the Middle East, and did not involve London, the British Empire, France, or any other western power.
The conflict mentioned in the first paragraphs, has been taking place with gathering momentum over the past 100 years, is taking place in Irian Jaya (Indonesia) of course.
I hope nobody concluded is was about some other place somewhere else in the world...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_conflict
The "strategic encroachment" as part of such "outgroup"-agendas must be searched for...
"During the late 20th century Indonesia resettled 300,000 farmers to the restive province of West Papua, transforming its demographic composition. Such resettlement, or ‘transmigration’, was quite limited until the mid-1980s and restricted to only certain areas of West Papua. What accounts for the incidence of transmigration? Using a panel of all transmigration, ethnic cleansing and demographic change data in each regency of West Papua during 1964-2000 compiled from confidential government sources, I show that, after an aborted Papuan uprising in 1984, Indonesia cleansed and settled its border with Papua New Guinea to forestall cross-border insurgent activity. I then show that after the Grasberg gold mine was opened in 1990 Indonesia cleansed and settled the area around the mine." from the introduction of "Indonesian Settler Colonialism in West Papua", 10 Jun 2020, Lachlan McNamee, University of California, Los Angeles
According to the "NIMBY"-principle, most people actually do not care much about unfolding events far away, so are most likely completely unaware that there even is a simmering conflict somewhere else. According to "NIMBY" however, should the shoe be on the other foot, and the own existence becomes "encroached upon" by an outside migrating group (immigrants/refugees), all of similar background, it doesn't take long for the observed "unease" to begin. Firstly, in the form of lots of moaning and groaning, then if no political action changing the course of events results, the "steps" gradually increase in the level of violence exerted. Firstly there would be randomly organized protests, then larger forms of civil unrest, more property damage, more arson, the first deaths, and so on, and so on, until there is a large scale revolution. Any wise political leadership will always head off such series of unfolding events, but there must be a recognition that action is called for. If not, the series of events always follow predictable patterns, regardless of the tier of events, the cultural background of those involved, the gods these people pray to, the ideology, or the language spoken.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Of course he meant what he said.
Why shouldn't he?
We have been meddling in their world ever since WW1....
First the Brits and the French, then the Americans.
From globalresearch, about the insidious western policies of "divide and rule":
"With the peoples of the region divided against each other, their resources can be controlled and they themselves governed and further manipulated with greater ease. This has been part of the objective of British and American foreign policy all along. In this effort, local rulers and foreign forces have been partners.
“The Coalition of the Moderate” in the Mid-East and the manipulation of the Arabs
“We [Israel] must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the U.S. to strike Iran.”
-Brigadier-General Oded Tira, Israeli Military
“Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them.”
The historical context of this statement is very significant. This admission was made during the First World War in the Middle East when the British were fighting against the Ottoman Turks with the help of the Ottoman’s rebellious Arab subjects. The Arab’s help was insured through false promises and London’s deception. What was being revealed by this interlocutor of British policy was British forces should not do most the active fighting in the Middle East and let the Arabs fight Britain’s war against the Turks.
Revealing the author, these were the words of a man who has been inscribed into the pages of history as a legendary figure and as a hero to the Arabs. In reality he was an agent of British imperialism that misled the Arabs with the help of corrupt local leaders. His name was Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Edward Lawrence or, as most people know him, “Lawrence of Arabia.”
3
-
3
-
Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar.
Washington DC s strategy is constant, using a geographical position of power.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equilibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to, and gaslighting the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequilibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equilibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The "divide and control/rule/conquer"-world is intact. It is practically as old as modern civilisation, and has never been defeated. Those with true power will do their utmost to ensure that the "divide and rule"-world we live in today, will rule for all times, because the DIVIDERS win, if all others fail.
The divide-and-rule system is a formless headless global system composed of every imaginable race, religion, ethnicity, language group, class, creed as an "ingroup" of power. This ingroup which intends to DIVIDE emergent unity elsewhere, contains all forms of "personal conviction" as "-ism" imaginable, with only a little input from top tiers.
Their aim is division.
This is divide-and-rule.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
EPISODE V:
A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised.
"Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
A massive strategic air force, was a form of warfare GB could not really afford.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Your "heroes" bombed the British Empire into ruin.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
3
-
Everything explained here, is part of a top-down divide-and-rule strategy of power.
To the outside divider of unity, it does not matter how divisions appear in a neigboring region or on another continent, since the dividers' only aim, is to avoid unity in a region/another continent. When you hear or read concepts like "avoid" or "fragmentation" it is always a part of a top-down divide-and-rule strategy of power, to avoid unity from formating elsewhere. This avoidance of unity elsewhere is implemented using a variety of political means, incl. but not limited to violence and war (Clausewitz as "war simply the continuation of politics"). To leverage these divides outsiders create local tools to implement more division, or "buck catchers" to defend the own power base (ratchet principle).
Historically, the MO is always the same:
Once an intransient continent/region has been created for oneself, the hegemony tries to implement transient regions for all others. [Today there are only two continents with sole hegemonies: North America (single hegemony, weak neighbors) and Australia (single hegemony, but economically insufficient to "rule the world")].
At three key points in history (around 1900, just after WW1, and around the year 2000), Europeans failed to create an intransient region for themselves, and therefore will remain transient for the foreseeable future. All the other continents apart from N. Am and Australia are "transient" and therefore easy to divide, "up for grabs" so to speak, by use of age-old strategies to create, and deepen existing divides.
From here, the basis of their own unity, they set out to divide all others.
Outside dividers have been instigating in Eurasia for more than a century, and then inside Russia again after the 1990s, made them the enemy of the USA/collective West steered by Washington DC, London, Paris, and other imperialist nations, who wish to rule by division.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
We in the west shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win). In other words, just as much Lend-Lease as needed, but not enough for the commie to storm all the way into Central Europe.
We should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary to aid D-Day, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why shouldn't it have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion?
Because we owed Stalin nothing.
Not single Jeep and not a single Studebaker truck, carrying commies into Central Europe by the millions.
Not a single drop of blood.
Stalin on the 19th August 1939, reported by meeting participants: "Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
So our leaders sacrificed own soldiers, own resources, and millions of own dollars, to hand over half the world to the commies. Only to end up fighting them in the other half for the next fifty years. Korea, Vietnam, the ME. Thousands of body bags of "our boys".
Rather silly to "help Stalin" don't you think, if we could have just let them "slug it out to utter exhaustion, and then march over the ruins, a fate Stalin had intended for us...
Ah...smart leaders.
Too bad we didn't have any...
There was Arthur "2 working brain cells" Harris who was "just following orders".
And Sir Charles "Mesopotamian kiddie terror bomber" Portal.
And, last but not least Winston "gas the Arab, Indians are beasts" Churchill, who thought that "flattening Germany" would leave a "Big Three" to rule the world. LOL.
Last time I checked, the Cold War had a "Big Two" and the totally bankrupt British Empire was squeezed out of existence.
Ah well.
Too bad.
Actions have consequences...
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Ufthak One can debate, and debate, and talk and talk forever about the why events unfold the way they do, or did in the past.
I say "the appeal to emotion" in the overwhelming majority plays a large role in how history is "steered", like a ship on the oceans: not foolproof, but a scientific approach (technology, navigation, skills, trained crew, etc.) can go a long way towards achieving the aim, by cutting out the function of the amygdala (feelings) in those involved (captain, officers, navigators, crew).
Imagine where a ship would end up if every single person followed their own priorities, feelings, or agendas? The acknowledged "role" of a leadership is to "steer" entire societies, countries, alliances, etc.
History can be steered like a ship, by steering people, proactively. This is the systemic analysis, which looks at the systems and the strategies employed, and cuts out the appeals to emotions (hubris, jingoism, ideology, etc.).
Afterwards there will always be a flurry of historians picking out their favorite random facts, telling us these are the only facts that matter, to ignore everything else, and we can only use these facts ("cherry picking") to explain what happened. They use the typical age-old means to convince (logos, ethos, pathos), and present their stories as a mix of it. I'm not interested in the "stories" they tell. I analyse what the "stories" are.
3
-
The storyline of settler colonialism is a subsection of the study of divide-and-rule/conquer/control. The "settler" (role in strategy) WANTS something, and thereby become the tools of imperialism, and this is usually portrayed as "generally good for mankind" (sic.) in Anglo-Saxon historicity. A few of the horrible events which result out of the mass-influx of outsiders on an existing status quo is usually added in "to seem fair and balanced" but the strategy is never elaborated. The storyline always rhymes, regardless of where on the planet such SYSTEMIC EXPANSION takes place, and the informed history fan will recognize it, regardless of all the obfuscating and whataboutism ("finger pointing" ingroup). It goes something like this: If we (ingroup) arrive somewhere, with our systems, intent on gain, we (ingroup) are always right. But...and here is the big BUT: If we are somewhere, settled in, regardless of what happened before, and if the people who were already there want to re-assert themselves, WE are always right too. What a nice storyline: "We" (ingroup story/Anglo-Saxon historicity) are always right, regardless of what is actually unfolding on a timeline.
The storyline of the advocates of mass-immigration into a region of the globe never leaves room for misinterpretation: the outsiders are always "right" and those already there, defending the status quo, were "wrong."
The storyline of the oppressed "switching sides" to become the oppressors in another region of the globe always rhymes too. White settler colonists who went to North America or Southern Africa were overwhelmingly from Europe, at least in the early stages of the 500-year project.
They were:
- religiously persecuted.
- poor and oppressed.
- escaping war.
- parts of religious ingroups.
- allowed to leave Europe since these created problems for the ruling elites.
- after "settling", they (ingroup) received imperialist support from centers of power once inside and settled down on the "promised land".
- if the local names don't sound familiar, just adapt or change the names and invent a suitable cover story.
- after independence is declared "with a little help from fwiends," one sidedly without consultation with the original inhabitants, everything done after that became "legal 'cos a law made by 'us' (ingroup) says so".
- cherish the narrative of "there is a war going on, ya know", so we (ingroup) "do nothing wrong"...ever... (note: there is always a "war going on", so we/ingroup are also strangely "always right").
Once arrived in the promised lands, some (not all) took the holy book in one hand, the gun in the other, and set out to first squeeze out, and later encircle the indigenous populations into ever-smaller reservations, after ethnically cleansing them in Trails of Tears. This history of South America, the Caribbean, the USA, Australia, New Zealand of South Africa, rhymed in the Levant 100 and 200 years later (1920s thru until today) and the Kenyan "White Highlands" at the same time (early-20th century). Even the "stories" these white supremacists tell themselves in order to cover up their actions and the systemic overpowering of the locals sound exactly the same as 100 and 200 years ago, rhyming with the actions 100 and 200 years before in North America, Southern Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc...
Today, with few exceptions, even the slogans their white supremacist leaders chant rhyme in nature. The storyline which rhymes, is that the indigenous populations at a certain status quo when "we" (ingroup) arrived on their shores, were just the inferior "placeholders" and therefore mere "dogs in the manger" (quoting Churchill about Native Americans and Arabs) until the true chosen people, the "superior whites" arrived to shoo them away with words, money, guns, and the POWER of OUTSIDE imperialist means and ends.
Today the propagandists want YOU to "do and follow" and not to "think and oppose" imperialism.
The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same strategies of expansion as they did 500, 200 and 100 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care. As always, the warning voices of the sane halves are ignored, downplayed, "finger pointed" at as "unpatriotic," or as being "in bed with the enemy", and many other forms of equally "rhyming history."
It is what they spend billions on every year so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching to the jolly tunes.
The settler colonists came in droves for SYSTEMIC EXPANSION and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE...
Also rhyming, are the sane voices of reason and logic: they remain a minority. Even if they are a majority, these voices of opposition do not count, for the entire system is geared on SYSTEMIC EXPANSION. Same as 500 years ago. The actions they can get away with might be restricted a little by laws, but the stories still rhyme.
3
-
3
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." -- Walter E. Williams
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
As for the introduction, agreed.
As for the date chosen ("1888") to "save Europe"...nope
It starts off with 2 false premises.
1) "smart" Bismarck kept Germany (and by extension, Europe) safe
2) Bismarck "cleverly isolated France and thereby politically isolated it"
Both are wrong.
While 1) is correct in that it isolated revanchist France from finding allies, it did not avoid the 2-front war scenario for Germany.
Number 2) is also incorrect, in that it is only "half the truth". It was not only Berlin which "isolated France" politically, but also London (see Splendid Isolation), and of course the rapidly rising USA, Russia (and also theoretically Austria-Hungary). While it was unlikely that A-H would have ended French political isolation, all the others could have, by own choice.
And after her defeat in 1871, that is exactly what happened. Being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty present to the American people). And since the Franco-Prussian War had removed Napoleon III from power, the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, opening the door to better relations.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC), it was now Washington DCs turn to play some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalists?
Isolated France/Paris, dissed by her neighbors...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
He is pointing out that the citizens of USA are a victim of the monsters your leaders create, fund, and help organise as divide and rule tools...
Ignorance of your own government's evil, does not protect individuals from harm.
From globalresearch
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”
During the 1970’s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.
Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980’s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.
America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.
The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now [2015] the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
Greg B Truman had a forth choice.
Let the Japanese keep their emperor, and follow that up with a demonstration of the force of the new weapon in the Tokyo Bay area.
In hindsight, which is what we are doing here, it was even the better choice, because dropping the nukes almost led to a successful coup d'etat by young officers who would have fought to the death, partly because the Potsdam Declaration insisted on unconditional surrender.
Making a small concession to the Japanese, coupled with a demonstration of the new weapon over Tokyo Bay, in full view of the Japanese government, would have had the same effect ( Japanese surrender).
Furthermore, that would have meant that the support for the coup would have disintegrated, meaning even less likelihood of it succeeding.
Note, creating hypothetical scenarios (the millions of deaths following an invasion, which didn't happen) can also be countered by other hypothetical scenarios, which didn't happen.
In this discussion, there is no need to state WHY the bombs were dropped on cities filled with civilians. The reason WHY that happened is because those who made the decision felt absolutely no empathy for the Japanese civilians ( the firebombing raids proved this). Therefore any attempt to spin the discussion into 'we saved millions of poor Japanese civilians' is flawed from the outset.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Joshua Brooks Why not let Germans economically dominate central Europe?
What God given right does one nation have over another?
Why not share the world more equally?
WW1 was avoidable, and the result of (yet another) Balkan crises.
Ah, I see.
The roughly 6 million deaths, the millions of civilian deaths, the suffering, the hatred, the endless stories of mutilated and shell shocked 'lucky ones' who survived. Endless more millions, traumatized by PTSD for years to come, to avoid 'sharing the world' were well worth it. The enormous debt, only recently fully paid (2010 was the last British installment).
All well worth it.
Right?
Let's explore the world it led to together, shall we?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Albert Samuel The entire moral issues side is pointless. By focusing on this aspect, allows historians to completely ignore a complete different, and VERY valid issue, which is ; Was the bombing effective?
I don't know if you are familiar with the expression 'pulling wool over somebody's eyes '? The focus on the justified or not, allows historians to distract our attention.
That's exactly what is happening here.
Fact remains, that the entire strategic bombing campaign was ineffective, ill coordinated, ill conceived, based on bullshit assumptions, and a waste of OWN resources.
Allied countries wasted resources on something which did not work.
These resources could have been used for more valuable forms of support for the soldiers.
The topic of the debate is about 'justified', and that includes issues like 'Were the deaths of 55,000 dead RAF airmen who died, JUSTIFIED if one considers what little they achieved in return'.
Or, 'Were the enormous resources GB poured into RAF Bomber Command, JUSTIFIED if one considers that it hardly aided the fight of the soldiers who fought on the front lines?'.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+jake hubelot
Wielun, or the German name Welun, was not an example of indiscriminate bombing of civilians according to an official government policy, or a military doctrine (which at the time was ' Blitzkrieg')
Quoting Wielun as an example of 'indiscriminate bombing of civilians according to an official government policy' is incorrect. What policy?
It was, plain and simple, a case of ' interdiction'.
In case you state otherwise, you will ALSO have to believe that the Germans invaded Poland to free the 'oppressed German minority Poland (sic. - source Nazi propaganda made for Germans at the time) only to have German pilots 'terror bomb' their OWN ethnic brothers and sisters. With 10 to 50 % of the civilian population in the border regions believed to be ethnic Germans, you are going to try and convince me that 'ze Krauts' bombed here for pure pleasure, and not to aid the advance of their ground forces. Honestly, do you even realize how stupid that theory sounds?
The truth is that Wielun was a mistake, and was drawn in as an HQ of a Polish cavalry brigade. So, in reality it is an example of interdiction, and in the words of our western historical apologists (for example when explaining away the 20,000 French civilian deaths at and around the time of D-Day) 'there was a war going on, and no time to be nice' :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A bit of crackpot logic presented by Patrick Bishop.
16:19 "They were not afraid to boast in their propaganda..." They are actually quoting Nazi propaganda, in other words the twisted logic of criminals, to justify the killing of civilians
16:40 "...the Germans talked..." Which Germans? Was Orwell actually there?
17:55 "...the words of Thomas Mann...", speaking from the safety of exile. I wonder what Mann would have said if he had been sitting in the middle of Lubeck with firebombs falling all around, frying his kids to cinders?
18:50 " ...those were desperate times..." BS, the USA had just turned into a fully fledged Ally, only the worst pessimist would be thinking of losing.
19:09 "...in the spring of 1942...war was going Germany's way..." In reality, the Germans were freezing to death in Russia, and Rommel had been kicked out of Egypt, all the way back to his starting point a year before....
19:20 "...in January 1942...the Wannsee Conference..." Did they know the Wannsee Conference took place when the area bombing order was given a month later (in Febr 1942)? Obviously not, so that's an EXCUSE (given in 1945), and not a REASON (which existed in February 1942)
2
-
A bit of crackpot logic presented by Patrick Bishop.
16:19 "They were not afraid to boast in their propaganda..." They are actually quoting Nazi propaganda, in other words the twisted logic of criminals, to justify the killing of civilians
16:40 "...the Germans talked..." Which Germans? Was Orwell actually there?
17:55 "...the words of Thomas Mann...", speaking from the safety of exile. I wonder what Mann would have said if he had been sitting in the middle of Lubeck with firebombs falling all around, frying his kids to cinders?
18:50 " ...those were desperate times..." BS, the USA had just turned into a fully fledged Ally, only the worst pessimist would be thinking of losing.
19:09 "...in the spring of 1942...war was going Germany's way..." In reality, the Germans were freezing to death in Russia, and Rommel had been kicked out of Egypt, all the way back to his starting point a year before....
19:20 "...in January 1942...the Wannsee Conference..." Did they know the Wannsee Conference took place when the area bombing order was given a month later (in Febr 1942)? Obviously not, so that's an EXCUSE (given in 1945), and not a REASON (which existed in February 1942
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tom Barnes If one understands the principles of geostrategy, and looks at a pre-1914 map, the motivations of German and Austrian leaders make a lot of sense.
The assassination offered the perfect pretext to crush Serbia, and break out of the constriction which resulted from the two power blocks (Entente, completely 'encapsulating' the Central Powers).
In the west, there was France, and in the east it was Russia....nuff said. To the north there was neutral Scandinavia (mixed possibilities), and in the south it was ' friendly' Italy....uhm....well....
Crushing Serbia to break out towards the Balkan and beyond, made a perfect 'motivation', which together with the M-A-I-N causes of WW1, was the 'powder keg' often revered to by historians....
2
-
2
-
Tom Barnes So what are you proposing?
For example that gaining control over 'backwards Spanish colonies' would never have been a motivation for the US to declare war on Spain in 1898?
Or that gaining control over 'backwards India' would never have been a motivation for the British elite to invest here?
Well, for your information, they did :-)
Do you really understand geostrategic aims?
In other words, the FULL strategic advantages that having either direct (colonies, overseas territories, 'Soviets', or whatever one wishes to call it), or indirect (alliances, dominions, and states controlled by puppets, etc.) control or access to or of a certain land mass.
How developed that is plays no role.
In order to gain the finances to develop regions, one FIRST needs to secure it, in order to attract private investment.
Bear in mind, that what I'm explaining is common knowledge now, not theory.
Why should the principles of economics, which have steered the development of the British Empire for 400 years, or the US 'empire' for 200 years ( note, in quotation marks, since few Americans like to admit that their ruling elites ALSO strive for an empire), be any different to those guiding the development of any other capitalist empire?
2
-
+Tom Barnes
'Comparing India to Serbia is a little stupid.'
Where did I 'compare' India with 'Serbia'?
Contextual reading too difficult?
'Again, have you read his book?'
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO...got it? I already said 'no'. Comprende?
'You pretend that looking a map makes it clear without paying attention to the any of evidence out there that goes against what you say.'
I said there were multiple reasons for WW1. Read in context.
'I won't reply to any more of your comments...
Why should I care?
'.... unless you actually refute the arguments Clark makes against you...'
Why should I?
What I write about geopolitics complements whatever anybody else writes, it doesn't counter what Clarke or anybody else writes.
'1 Serbia was a rogue state'
Who the fuck cares. It's irrelevant to my theory about geopolitics what Serbia, and Serbian leaders were....
'2 Russia and especially France were keen to escalate conflict despite knowing and even indirectly encouraging '
Yes I know. So?
Geopolitics is about politics, not war.
The French had their own geopolitical ambitions, which was avoiding Germany and Austria gaining access to the Balkans, Turkey, and beyond.
The French wanted to CONTAIN Germany and Austria, which is why they supported their ally, Russia's dream of conquering the Dardanelles.
It neatly COMPLEMENTS what I write.
Do you know what the word 'to complement' means.
Why do you think each and everybody always needs to counter everybody else?
Furthermore, you don't really know what geopolitics means, do you?
'3 That the war came as a direct result of the state sponsored assassination of another country's heir to the throne...'
Yes, triggered. And?
Nothing to do with geopolitics.
'....and was not as you say, an inevitable response to geopolitics.'
LOL, Clarke's book is called 'Sleepwalkers', meaning that WW1 was not planned. The leaders stumbled into it, each side too proud to back down from decisions once taken.
Nothing to do with geopolitics.
'You can bang on about the map all you like but it doesn't explain much more than deployment plans.'
Nope. Maps don't explain deployment plans. Maps are about geography. You know, the locations of states, land masses to expand to, raw materials, strategically valuable ports, access to waterways and oceans.
You obviously don't have a clue what 'geopolitics' means...yawn....
'Why not earlier?'
Time has nothing to do with geopolitics.
What's your point?
'If they were waiting for a pretext to crush Serbia, why do it in the hilariously slow and unconvincing way that they did?'
Geopolitics are extremely long term policies.
The American Manifest Destiny took more than a hundred years to carry out.
Policies are patient.
Only idiots are in a hurry.
'They were pushed back by Serbia so ill prepared they were!'
Doesn't prove anything.
In Somalia, a bunch of hillbillies with AK-47s threw Americans out. What does that prove?
A simple example of underestimating the enemy. Simple as that. Doesn't disprove anything I write. Nothing to do with 'geopolitics'.
Here.
Do some further studying, before wasting anymore of my time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolitics
I know it's only Wiki, but that should give you a quick overview, to bring you up to speed. If the topic really interests you, you can work your way through the dozens of links and references at the bottom of the page.
I've already done my studies.
Twenty years of reading give me a little head start....
2
-
2
-
trauko1388 "You are ignoring evidence and facts in order to put forward a different theory not born of facts."
Why are you trying to prove me wrong? Why don't you use the study of geopolitics and geostragegy to find support for your own standpoint?
http://alphahistory.com/worldwar1/balkans/
http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-each-of-the-great-powers-helped-start-the-first-wor-1597047451
"There were plenty of people in Austria AGAINST absorbing Serbia, they may want to destroy their state, but they didnt want any more god damned slavs in an empire troubled by its minorities."
Yes, correct.
One doesn't have to occupy and subject though.
Instating puppets has always been a favorite means of the proponents of geopolitics.
It lowers costs, as opposed to direct occupation, which is expensive.
"AH already had a sea outlet, unless they conquered Gibraltar and Suez any acquisition would not change their position."
Access to the Ottoman Empire via the Med, was far more dangerous (open seas) to shipping than using a waterway via the Danube. That would have been impossible for the British and French to intercept, unless they breached the Dardanelles.
The Russian navy was not considered a potent adversary after Tsushima.
In order for river shipping to safely use the Danube, both Serbia and Romania had to be FIRMLY in the Central Powers camp.
And I mean FIRMLY, not wavering, or divided.
In order to secure the investment of billions of Reichsmarks (for example, the Iron Gates rapids on the Danube), the political situation had to be secure.
Again, this is a fundamental prerequisite for private investment.
As a general rule, nobody likes to invest in a shithole, and then lose money due to changes in the political landscape.
Again, if I write this, it does not counter anything you write.
It is simply a fact.
How you weigh it, is your own prerogative.
Yes, these are all examples of geostrategy.
2
-
***** Firstly, apologies. I didn't mean to imply that Serbia was a shithole. That was meant to be a general truth ( Africa, Asia), so I amended that to read ' As a general truth...'
Yes, most of the rest what youb write is correct.
The German and AH geopolitical policies were based on 'divide and rule', because local tensions could be used and manipulated.
The 2 Balkan Wars caused huge tensions among the ethnic groups, and the ruling elites.
Serbian geopolitical goals are also well-known.
By siding with the 'winners' of WW1, Serbia could impose its wish of the South Slav state ( Yugoslavia) against the wishes of large portions of those societies (esp. Croats and Slovenes).
It was a failed experiment, because one cannot force together what does not belong together.
In the meantime, Yugoslavia has fallen apart in a bloody civil war. It should never have been, because it was an artificial entity, a result of Versailles and Trianon.
French ambitions have proven a long-term disaster.
Also an example of geopolitics and geostrategy at work.
2
-
***** Yes, that was an excellent analyses of human nature.
Humans are the same all over the world, and common negative human characteristics, result in similar events ('greed' leading to 'oppression and exploitation', 'interests' leading to 'wars', ' military power' leading to 'arrogance of power', or 'racism' leading to concentration camps, torturers, or cruelty). Note, to name just a few examples.
I don't have the space to elaborate...
In a nutshell.
Human nature steers the geopolitics and geostrategies of 'empires', irrelevant of whether it's modern day USA, the Spanish Empire 500 years ago, or the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago.
It doesn't matter if one is talking about a modern day Russian or American, a 1910 Serb or German, an 1850 Brit or Frenchman. The motivations and guiding principles are the same.
The human beings are the same. Doesn't matter what language they speak, what God they pray to, or what cultural aspects influence them.
It looks as if you fully comprehend how the world works :-)
2
-
+trauko1388 " And what was the point of a bridge to the Ottoman Empire? They had no resources to speak of. Oil was found, but AH had oil already in Galicia, and a closer source at Romania which happened to be an ally, if they really wanted it they could have engineered a war against Romania, not Serbia."
You don't understand the concepts of geopolitics at all.
If you would bother spending some time reading only a fraction of what I have, you will gain a deeper understanding of 'empires'.
Have you read about the Bagdad railway?
Your comment shows me that you don't have a clue about the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES which are behind 'empires'.
Have you read about the German plans to expand that railway network to Basra ( = access to the Persian Gulf and oil), and Aqaba ? (= access to the Red Sea, and a threat to the Suez Channel). That means, the concept behind 'future potential threat'....
What good would it be to have a waterway if you fully control Romania, but don't also fully control the Iron Gate, or Belgrade?
What you lack is a deeper understanding of the principles which determine 'empires'.
You already perfectly grasp the obvious and visible.
Therefore, I won't criticize what you write, because I actually agree with some of what you say.
Just grasp that what I write is DIFFERENT.
To get back to my example of 'Jaqueline' :-)
I'm the one writing that 'Jaqueline is beautiful'.
You are the one trying to 'counter' me, and 'negate my points' by stating 'No, Nissans are crap, therefore she is ugly'.
Can't you grasp that we are on entirely DIFFERENT levels?
If you want to talk about cars, then let's talk about engines, esthetics, design...
But if you want to talk about beautiful women, then let's talk about eyes, big noses, curves, and....well...you know :-)
2
-
2
-
***** Agreed again, so thanks for the pleasant discourse.
Of course, all events are practically dictated by human nature.
In fact, we can see human nature at work in this very thread.
Trauko, for example, will already judge the information in a comment according to the name of the commentator, and not according to the information contained in the text.
To Trauko, we are already 'enemies' which need to be 'countered', and if the two of us are getting along just fine, then we are both 'on the same side'.
As for your first paragraph with the paradox of the 'chicken or the egg'.
My take on that is that it evolved together.
None of the two were actually 'first'.
Human beings are a result of the environment, and then the environment in turn influenced our behaviour or mindset.
Our human nature is the result of microscopical small changes, same as our bodies.
Take racism for example.
For 100,000 years, primitive man HAD to be suspicious and wary of 'the unknown', or beings which looked different to themselves.
Not having this possitive quality, would have meant ending up in the belly of an unknown species, or in the cooking pot of an unknown race.
Therefore, we are burdened by evolution.
Today, we can explain a lot of the unknowns around us, but the positive instinct which ensured our survival for 100,000 years, is now a burden.
Many of us still 'fear' or are wary of the 'unknown dark' races even though the need for that has long passed.
Now, I suppose Trauko is going to pipe up with a 'You idiot, there are just as many black racists as there are white racists', entirely missing the point again :-)
But that's OK, I'll get over it...
Yes, sociology is indeed a fascinating subject.
Understanding human nature, helps with interpreting the typical YT thread, in which everybody wants to be right....LOL.
2
-
***** Yes, I'll give you a 'plus' for that comment.
The urge to 'shoot first, ask later' was certainly a survival instinct from a time when ethical considerations hardly played a role.
Of course, if you had been a primitive man communicating in grunts 100,000 years a go, waiting until you understood what another primitive man, also communicating with grunts meant, you could already be dead. Better knock him on the head if you didn't understand what he wanted.
The knee jerk reaction using words is just a modern variation of that.
So you are correct.
A lot of our modern behaviour is influenced by ancient instinct.
I also agree with you on the issue of refugees.
Too many, let in too fast, without enough supervision or thought. Anybody with a little bit of knowledge (again, about sociology) should have foreseen the disaster.
My dad has an interesting theory.
He said that finding a proper solution for the refugee crises was hampered by a long term effect of WW2. Of course, we had to help in some kind of short term way. One can't have women and children die of cold or disease at the borders.
So, of course, the most logical thing to do would have been a separation process at the border (sorting out all the young fit men), and then seperating the rest according language, religion or other criteria, and then 'concentrating' them in 'camps'.
I guess you can already see where this is going :-)
Of course, no European politician will ever again think about large camps, even for valid humanitarian reasons, due to the images of Nazi concentration camps of WW2.
Personally, I thought the idea was brilliant.
It combined the humanitarian and philosophical principles, together in an easily manageable system of camps (say, already existing, empty army bases).
Then, when the war is over, it will also facilitate easy repatriation.
The chaos we have now is neither pleasant for us, nor for the honest and decent refugees with a valid reason to flee (old, sick, women with kids, etc.).
Of course, I have zero sympathy for the hordes of 20-year old men demanding their 'rights' (and money of course).
That shows how considerations concerning past history can actually achieve a negative result today.
2
-
2
-
trauko1388 trauko1388 "Yeah... do any of those explain that the British consented on this fearsome railway's construction, thereby ending any speculation regarding the "geopolitical threat" it poised? XD"
No, British and French banks helped finance it.
What do you want from me? A hundred links that will explain how geopolitics work? It cannot be explained by the simple 'single quotes' of popular history. You know, the 'he said this' and 'he said that' simplification by popular mainstream historians.
What is there about geopolitics that you don't understand?
We are are not talking about 'Blitzkrieg', but LONG TERM strategies.
"Germany woudnt go to war for a silly private venture on the Ottoman Empire, they had bigger fish to fry and far more important concerns elsewhere."
No, of course not.
It would just make a nice little reward when wars are won.
Again, 'motivation' does not mean that those people WHO HAD THE MOTIVATION ALSO HAD THE INFLUENCE TO START WARS...uh...sorry, but your ignorance is finally wearing my patience thin :-)
"If you want to see who was really concerned about Ottoman lands and was quite willing to go to war for it read McMeekin, his thesis has a documentary base at least, which is more than it can be said about your "land bridge" nonsense."
I hope you are not to easily confused between the concepts of 'theory' and 'reality'.
2
-
trauko1388 I didn't write a 'land bridge theory'. You are claiming that I wrote a 'land bridge theory'.
I wrote 'Why WW1?'
Note, that I didn't use the populist 'Who STARTED WW1?', since that would be ENTIRELY different.
So, let's start here. Allow me to clarify my intent, by adding 'Why did WW1 unfold or develop the way it did?'
In order to fully grasp that, one would first have to understand that what was LATER called 'WW1' or 'The Great War' , evolved in three distinct phases.
1) Balkan Crises, and Balkan War, started by AH, and provoked by Serbia
2) Continental European war, started by Germany, and provoked by Russia, which was backed by France
3) 'World War', started by GB, her dominions, Japan, Italy, Ottoman Empire, USA, and however else jumped on the band wagon, based on pretexts.
Are you with me so far?
2
-
trauko1388 What the matter?
Are you sensing defeat, and looking for a way out?
As for the Balkan War.
German leaders wanted a 'quick and easy' war by their ally AH, against Serbia.
The assination offered the perfect pretext.
In order to keep AHs eastern border free, they issued the famous 'blank cheque'. The intention was NOT as claimed by popular historians, because 'German leaders wanted WW1'. In fact, German leaders issued the 'blank cheque'. because the wanted to AVOID the war from expanding, by scaring off Russia (as happened in 1908).
That would have resulted in a neat '3rd Balkan War", which would have been 'over by Christmas' (a popular expression of the warmongers).
Not OK, as far as I'm concerned, since the AH leaders could have accepted the Serbian offer to accept most of the ultimatum they had received.
Unlike 1908, France decided to support Russia, as in countless war games before the war (Russian 'steamroller from the east, and the French Plan XVII from the west, to crush Germany in the middle).
This was decided on when French PM Poincare visited St. Peterburg during the July Crises. Just after he left, the Russian Army mobilized, accompanied by the usual excuses (only against AH, bla, bla), but of course the mobilization was a FULL mobilization on the 29th July directed at both Germany and AH. France mobilized on the 1st, followed by Germany the same day.
Of course, the Germans didn't really think it would be so much fun to have Russians rape and burn Berlin, and French troops plunder the Saar, so to preempt that, they declared war first, and struck asap. That started the 'continental European phase of the war.'
Perfectly acceptable to strike first, as far as I'm concerned. buuut, unfortunately they decided to take a shortcut through Belgium...damn....
With me so far?
Basically, the German mobilization plans were a bit quicker, so that the French and Russian plans to take Germany in a vice grip, didn't work out so well.
The French got their asses handed to them at the Battle of the Frontiers, and Russia's 'steamroller' basically ran out of steam at Tannenburg, mainly due to the German soldiers and superior leadership.
How am I doing so far?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nyctasia A strong argument.
I have one question concerning your statement:
"With Ireland, the Germans were taking sides, a shipment of 50,000 rifles was hardly a non-commital action"
Do you have a reference for that?
I can't find anything on the www, concerning direct or indirect sales of arms by Germany. As you mentioned, these sales were covert, and did not have (at least on the surface) official support.
I'm sure the Brits would not have reacted kindly if direct sales of arms, or any form of open support in an area which could be considered a British sphere of influence, had taken place.
IMO, it is meddling which results in affront, and from there leads to war. Sorting out afterwards who should be seen as "responsible" is often influenced by nationality or ideology.
You're probably right in your final paragraph, in that everything is a form of escalation, and the first tiny steps in this process of escalation often lie in events far back.
Personally, I don't like the "blame game". As far as I'm concerned, all I see is guilty men, and not much innocence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
At 18:50 mins
Brest-Litovsk.
IMO, one of the gravest outcomes of the Armistice and a fact seldom mentioned, was the result of the renunciation of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk for the peoples of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.
The armistice demanded the immediate removal of German (also Turkish and A-H) forces, and the resulting power vacuum was quickly exploited by the Reds, who rolled over Ukraine, Poland and the Caucasus region, whose population had only just plucked up the courage to declare their independence.
The second clause of the Armistice of 1918 (concerning the Eastern front) was a short-sighted vindictive and self centered decision, especially since the Russian invasion of Finland in 1918 had already shown what the Reds were capable of, and what they thought about independence and freedom of others.
Allied leaders completely underestimated the Reds, and millions of people subsequently suffered the loss of their lives, health and property.
Even worse, the returning German troops subsequently roamed the streets of Berlin, or signed up for private militia, a serious risk to the shaky new democratic Weimar Republic.
My conclusion?
It would have been better for the peoples of these areas if the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk had remained intact, since it legally bound Russia (or rather the SU), to peace in these areas.
The Allies should have used their victory in the west, to ease some of the harsher conditions, without altering the main conditions, at least until the newly formed independent nations had organized and consolidated their own nations into self-supporting (and defensible) states.
Hindsight?
Certainly, but there isn't much in history which isn't....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
King Baldwin IV You are like the kid in class wailing about how he failed the exam 'because the teacher hated me', because 'the books are terrible', because 'I had so much else to do', because 'my parents didn't support me enough', because 'I just broke up with my girl-friend', because...because...
Do you see a pattern here?
"Communism is evil?"
Who the hell EVER said that communism wasn't evil? Of course it was. We are NOT discussing concepts of 'good' or 'evil'. That is an ENTIRELY different debate, and your comment is clearly the old attempt at obfuscating the point under discussion.
The US simply extricated herself out of a pointless situation (OWN decision to intervene in the Vietnamese nation's strive for independence as a united nation) by making a deal in Paris and sneaking out the back door.
Promises of support were broken, and the cause of your puppet ally abandoned.
Here is a short overview of the BIG PICTURE in 1973.
1) world opinion = where were your allies?
2) home front = a continuation of war if the peace accord was broken was out of the question
3) opposition = willingness to accept almost unlimited losses, with the FULL support (as proxy) of China and the SU.
In view of the big picture, only a FOOL would have tried to cling to the initial objective.
It was therefore a lost cause.
The North won.
The USA and the region paid the price for western power players' with their colonial attitude of dominance, and their unwillingness to come to terms with the new reality which had been strengthened during WW2.
The Vietnamese nation's declaration of independence in September 1945, should simply have been accepted as the reality of things.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The real "WW1", or first "great" war actually took place from 1803 to 1815.
In terms of scope and victims, it was mainly limited by technology. Still, despite the limited capabilities of the weapons of the times, there were more than 4 million victims, in all corners of the globe.
The first truly "global war".
Notice however how historians (correctly btw) separate this "first global war" (aka The Napoleonic Wars) into seven distinct phases, based on a scientific and exact analyses of the reasons/motivations at the time, whereas for WW1/WW2 there are attempts to create one big emotionally steered mashup.
Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, historians are of course far more candid re. "motivations/reasons" (note: the real reasons, not the ancillary details). Most people are entirely emotionally detached from events 200 years ago, so there is also no need to spin history either to appease an own population.
There are no endless debates about "Who started it?"
The Napolionic Wars were of course declared by London, as a preventive war, in May 1803, and the (correct) reason/motivation given for this declaration of war, by most historians, is that it was to "avoid the single hegemony" on the continent.
In 1914, "WW1" evolved out of a local conflict, which started in the Balkans, and through a few unfortunate twists and turns developed into the second truly "world" war, in order to establish domination and rule.
Hanlon's Razor states "not to attribute to mallice, what can adequately be explained by stupidity", and with WW1, Europe started its own demise because of efforts to remain individually dominant/relevant.
Of course, on the other side of the Atlantic, wars were always fought for unity, and common goals (aim of expansion).
The American Century was a ship already launched, but renamed halfway.
The "ship" started its journey with a war of unity (Civil War because of "poor slaves" aka "the emotional argument"), then expanding westwards (Manifest Destiny, Mexican-American War), getting rid of entities which could be misused by foreign powers to "divide and rule" ("Trails of Tears" of the unfortunate "losers" of history), and the consolidation of own strength (Monroe Doctrine/Spanish-American War).
And with that, the "ship" bumped up against the "dock", which was European rule and domination of the globe.
Didn't anybody notice?
The history of the west I guess, in a five minute nutshell...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sebi One OK, I read again, and see what you mean.
Basically you are stating the principle of 'cause and effect' or the principle 'causation'.
Or, as the propaganda machines would have it, 'reap what you sow', or 'get what you deserve' :-)
I don't mind discussing theories of causation, as long as these are based on facts.
Then, one would also clearly have to define what the topic of discussion is, to avoid confusion.
An example:
The statement, 'the German LW first killed innocent civilians in WW2', is entirely correct.
However, the statement 'the British RAF first use indiscriminate bombing of civilians as a result of doctrine and as a matter of policy', is also correct.
Therefore, the 'who started it'-debate is entirely ridiculous, unless one defines parameters.
The entire bombing war was a matter of escalation, one step on the one side, being 'countered' by another tiny step on the other. Mostly, it is only civilians (not people with military training and background) who argue about the 'who started it', confusing the issues due to an improper use of terminology and definitions, based on a lack of knowledge, or a lack of real interest in the topic.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Eddy Cutz I agree. You are actually addressing part of the problem, which is that liberal people are usually (not always, of course) also docile and complacent. Therefore more inclined to accept a given situation without a fight.
On the other hand, the right wingers are often (again, often, not always) arrogant and outspoken. Therefore, more inclined to fight for their own standpoint as a matter of character.
Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. In other words there are just as many violent leftists as there are docile right-wingers, but when one looks at the overall picture, the typical right-winger will prevail, especially in times of real or perceived danger.
The question is how to make the change, because that would mean making docile and complacent people actually go out there to stand up for what they believe in.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
39:20 "...Minsk, Smolensk in the SU..."
I find the British obsession for defending Stalin pretty weird.
From 1939 to 1941, the "hero" leader (the cute "Uncle Joe" according to the then current British and US WW2 propaganda) sent the oil to fuel the German bombers heading for Coventry, and provided the ores to build bombs which rained down on London. Stalin's help to the Nazis continued literally to the last minute. At 3.00 o'clock in the morning of June 22nd 1941, the last train load full of oil crossed the border, just before the German invasion began.
Furthermore, grains from the Ukraine helped to make the RN attempts at blockading Nazi Germany pointless. Britain's most powerful weapon was a blunt sword, thanks to the "good ol' Uncle Joe"....
From 41:00 mins "the blood guilt..."
So, British pilots were sent to their deaths, bombing German women and kids, to revenge Russians?
BS "logic" for the uninformed.
The Brits "owed" Stalin nothing.
Not even a f*cking penny....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Kaddywompous Thanks for your comment. Of course, Americans have to decide on their own social system, by way of mutual agreement...same as everywhere else in the world.
The reason I commented, is to dispel the notion that 'socialism is evil' using the 'socialism = communism' mind trick.
To make a long story short, socialism isn't communism, but rather a deep seated feeling based on the family model.
Of course, it is not ideal, like I wrote in my OP.
Your fears are unfounded.
For one, you might underestimate the depth of human ingenuity. The answer to demographics will not be immigration, but technology and capital. Robotics and technology will make up for a lack of younger people, and advances in productivity (based on technology and robotics) will cancel out income. You'll have less of a workforce in total, but the overwhelming majority will work in much higher paid fields, cancelling out the masses of badly paid workers.
To avoid social tensions, a well balanced social system is the only way forward.
And defense?
750,000,000 people in a unity (Europe) sharing equal values and ideals have nothing to worry about.
Western leaders (and the US would be wise to integrate) have learned that it makes far more sense to divide the load of 'ruling the world' on as many shoulders as possible, and that there is no need for self-proclaimed 'policemen' with an arrogant attitude of 'calling the shots' :-)
So go ahead and scale down the US military...if the power and money hungry military industrial complex allows you to...
Who cares?
Again, that is something US citizens have to find a common consensus.
Whether they'd rather fund the insatiable military (and their 'end of the world' propaganda scenarios) forever, or rather invest in a well functioning social system, with affordable heathcare, education....etc., etc.
I, for myself, am looking forward to trading in my car for a robot when I retire in 20 years :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
James Rooney That is all correct.
Again, well thought through, and well written.
As you stated, it is all about the implications of judging future events, and how to deal with these future hypothetical scenarios.
Judging hypothetical scenarios on the basis of current situations, is also impossible, since the future of a state also depends on it's leadership, and whether the leadership of a "competing empire" will also always show goodwill to one's own empire.
Bear in mind that by alienating Germany based on assumptions about the possibility of future ill intentions, GB and her Empire automatically opened the back door to becoming "second fiddle" to another rising "empire".
That of the USA.
Basically, by leaning towards the USA from an early stage (say, roughly the time of WW1), British leaders placed a heavy bet on that the USA would always remain a stable democracy.
British leaders have placed high hopes (from an early 20th century POV) that the USA would always stay "the USA" (as we know it today), and not at some stage adopt a leadership with ill intentions towards the British Empire.
Luckily, that never happened, as the example of the SU shows.
It remains an interesting "what if".
What if GB had simply stayed out of WW1.
IMO, it might have saved the Empire for a few more decades, and led to a current "third block", based on the Commonwealth and the Pound, and which would have had the strength and influence to compete with the Dollar and the Euro ("continental Europe" dominated by Germany and France).
Today, the Commonwealth is a sad left over of former glorious times.
Involving herself in continental affairs, certainly hastened the end of the British Empire, and the Commonwealth as a power base, since GB simply lacked the funds to appease the colonies and dominions under her influence.
Even during WW1, GB turned from the world's biggest creditor, to the world's biggest debtor.
The question is "what for?"
Based on the assumptions of a few?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Chance Magruder Makes it sound as if the Bombs caused the Japanese leaders to surrender.
WRONG
Japanese leaders had already come to terms with the fact that the war was over. It was down to the terms, and the status of their "God" Emperor.
Instead of leading to the Japanese surrender, dropping the Bombs might have led to a US invasion to become necessary, instead of avoiding it.
The immediate result of Hirohito declaring the surrender of the Japan, was that a revolt and coup attempt was launched by a small radical group of officers.
It was avoided in the nick of time.
By a hairs breadth, dropping the bombs almost led to a new Japanese leadership, which would have continued the fight resulting in millions of more dying, including hundreds of thousands of US soldiers (sic).
Strangely enough, historians will gladly use hindsight or "put yourself in their shoes" to confirm the conclusion they wish us to believe. According to them, "fat Goering was stupid for not building heavy bombers" (hindsight, and not "put yourself in his shoes"), and "in May 1940, stupid British and French military leaders, were still fighting the last war" (hindsight, not "put yourself in their shoes").
These conclusions have been repeated so often over time, that people don't even recognize them as classical cases of hindsight anymore.
So, according to the very same logic of hindsight, I can also say that "dropping the Bombs, could have led to an invasion becoming necessary, rather than avoid it..."?
Isn't that ironical?
Isn't it ironical that the hundreds of thousands of American soldiers who would have died (sic,), if an invasion had been necessary, were actually saved by Japanese officers who thwarted a coup attempt by radical peers?
Isn't it ironical, that it was not the misguided 'logic' of our own leaders, who thought that their reasoning was 'universal', but the actions of a few Japanese soldiers in Tokyo, which 'made an Allied invasion of Japan unnecessary'?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It is simply a question of what the elites consider worthwhile to protect their vested interests.
The 'poor people' don't play a role, otherwise GB would never have started so many wars and invasions herself.
Belgium was a pretext.
There was no defense treaty, and if the elites had wanted to stay out, or even saw it as more opportune for their vested interests to join Germany, they would have simply changed their propaganda tune....
Then, we would have heard all about what terrible people 'the Belges' were. How they murdered 10,000,000 innocents in the Congo. How they brutally cut the hands of kids, simply because they didn't manage to gather enough rubber...
Yup...those evil 'Belges' certainly 'deserved what they got', and were simply 'reaping what they had sown'.
Beware, of the propaganda tales of our elites...WMD and all that...
2
-
At 58:40 mins
The "hardliner's" approach.
I find the British obsession for defending Stalin pretty weird.
From 1939 to 1941, the "hero" leader (the cute "Uncle Joe" according to the then current British and US WW2 propaganda) sent the oil to fuel the German bombers heading for Coventry, and provided the ores to build bombs which rained down on London. Stalin's help to the Nazis continued literally to the last minute. At 3.00 o'clock in the morning of June 22nd 1941, the last train load full of oil crossed the border, just before the German invasion began.
Furthermore, grains from the Ukraine helped to make the RN attempts at blockading Nazi Germany pointless. Britain's most powerful weapon was a blunt sword, thanks to the "good ol' Uncle Joe"....
Blood guilt ?
WTF?
So, 55,000 British highly trained pilots and crew were sent to their deaths, bombing German women and kids, to satisfy the demands of Stalin?
BS "logic" for the uninformed.
The Brits "owed" Stalin nothing.
Not even a f*cking penny....
Not a single drop of blood...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Bishop's speech was total BS, starting with the first comment.
"The Germans talked..." - the Germans were not all Nazi's
Lübeck was the first mass firebombing against civilians anywhere. By 1942 it was clear that Germany could never strike back, therefore the mass murder of civilians was cowardly.
"The Wannsee conference" as justification for the bombing campaign?Retrospectively, maybe, but in 1942 it was decided to raze Germany to the ground, irrelevant of what was decided by the Nazi leadership.
All weapons of war he mentioned (Oboe, 4-engined heavies, etc.) took YEARS to develop, tool up for, train, and put into action. These decisions were taken LONG BEFORE the war even started. It was policy.
Coventry cannot hold as justification for mass-murder on the scale of Dresden and Pforzheim. Any raid which has the OBJECTIVE of destroying a legitimate target (even if it misses), is justifyable. (Therefore also early RAF raids on Essen, and later raids like the Dambustersetc. were justifyable).
GB had "limited means"? What BS, the Empire and it's Dominions had "more means" that the land-locked Axis.
None of these conclusions are "in hindsight", as they were well-known by the time WW2 started.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
***** These are actual film reels taken of the event. Therefore, they are also a form of documentation.
What you are talking about, happens when news wants to report about something, but don't have something about the actual event. They then simply go into the archives and select some random picture or movie sequence which looks similar.
This is not what happened here.
This is what really happened, and it corresponds with all the other information on the event, for example the accounts of the French sailors, who all stated that the attack was unexpected.
The French officers also did not expect that an ally they had shared the horrors of WW1, and stood shoulder to shoulder with again in May 1940, would do this.
They did not know about Churchill's order to 'settle matters quickly', and expected negotiations, just like every other decent human being would.....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
pebutts Thanks for your input.
The reason I posted, is because I recognize a certain justification made by those who are better off, when determining the criteria used in this debate.
First off, why limit the debate to personal income tax only? Why, if the question of 'taxation' arises, immediate point the finger at the overall amount generated by a single tax, if there are hundreds of different forms of systems of tax?
You seem to be very knowledgeable about the subject, so let's admit to a few facts first. Let's also not limit the debate to Buffet (a man whom I admire BTW, for his savvy and because of his philanthropic side) and his secretary, who were only examples used by Obama to address a wider problem.
Firstly, there is hardly a wealthy person on the planet, who is not ALSO a company, or several companies, at the same time. This fact already offers massive advantages of ' shifting' money around. Extremely wealthy people keep money invested in firms, company funds and accounts, etc.
As a 'mere' average bloke, if I sell my shares with a profit, get dividends, etc., I immediately have to cough up the taxes due. Not so, somebody with much more money than I do. That person would use the methods made available to him by ' the system', and found a company. As you know, companies have all the benefits of using bookkeeping tricks to artificially reduce the 'profit'.
Therefore, if I get a few thousand Euro in dividends, I ( as a private person) IMMEDIATELY pay the tax due.
With a person who has more money left over to invest in stocks and shares, and collects several hundred thousand, won't get paid directly. These dividends first flow into a 'company', where it is then handled in the usual profit and loss manner. In end effect, the 'businessperson' pays a lower rate overall, despite the added costs involved in running a company.
I know what I'm talking about, since I was the PA of a rich family here in Europe for a long time, and I can add up the sums myself :-)
Of course, the overall amount paid by ' rich folks', is still higher, BUT as a percentage of overall income, it is lower.
The taxation on fuel (50% for some US states) is about right. I didn't work out the exact average of all US states though, because I was merely using it as an example to illustrate a problem. I quickly googled it before I wrote this essay. If I remember correctly, some states had rates as low as 35%, other states were much higher. Over here in Europe, rates are as high as 60%.
All of this is beside the point though.
Look around you on the streets, and then determine that the most cars that you see belong to lower and mid income citizens, who also do most of the driving, and therefore use most of the fuel. If they use most of the fuel, they also pay most of the taxes generated by the sale of gas. Correct?
However, you don't see a lobby for low and mid income citizens trying to limit the debate to gas taxation ONLY. You don't see average Joes pointing out how they pay most of the gas taxes generated by the government, because it benefits their argument. You don't see a low and mid income citizens lobby cherry picking criteria which makes it look as if they are being treated unfairly.
This is my only point.
It's the 'whiney super rich', complaining about how the unfair system is milking them, when the reality is that they actually already have 'the system' on their side. It's system which affords the really affluent to shift money around, to avoid what most others have to do AT ONCE. That is to pay their taxes, the moment the income is generated, or a service is paid (VAT), without the benefit of getting some of that back at the end of the year with a MASSIVE tax return.
And, again, I worked for 'rich folks' long enough to know exactly what I'm talking about...
Furthermore, how many of these low and mid income citizens (like 'Buffet's secretary') have a company along the side, under which they can balance the income generated by the dividends they earn, and can 'juggle the figures' in order to evade immediate payment of taxes?
But, how many '10%-ers' make use of this opportunity?
2
-
2
-
2
-
George the Kafir Many Churchill fans propose that Churchill would not have made a deal with Hitler in 1938. If that had been so, events could have turned out for the worse, since it is unlikely that Czechoslovakia would have held out for long in case of a German invasion.
Furthermore, the Nazis were holding secret talks with the dictatorial regime in Poland, and Hitler would have certainly concluded some kind of deal with the Poles (Polish PM Mosciki and Goering were hunting buddies), and Slovaks, before moving on Czecho(slovakia).
In case there had been no agreement at Munich, GB and France would have looked like warmongers, who chose war over ' 3 million Germans who wished to join their motherland' (sic). Not only in the dominions, but also in many other parts of the world, like the Americas, the people would not have agreed that '3 million Germans' was a valid reason for yet another world war.
It was March 1939, when German troops marched into Prague, that the world's eyes were finally opened. It would have been difficult to foresee this, since Hitler had actually never broken an international agreement he had negotiated and signed himself.
Many Churchill fans ignore this, and cling to his prophetic statement. Fans forget that Churchill was not in any position of power, and had nothing to lose by making that statement. On the other hand, he had everything to gain politically, in case he turned out to be correct about Hitler. Even today, it is easier to criticise those in power, if one isn't in power oneself.
Unlike Versailles, and other treaties imposed on Germany from outside following WW1, there was no excuse in March 1939. Hitler was clearly the aggressor.
Chamberlain was a wise man.
Sadly underrated.
2
-
George the Kafir Again, 100% in agreement.
It's also easy to forget that the main reason for the British successes in the early war years, were a result of the thorough preparations during the Chamberlain years. Chain Home and Fighter Command ground control, the Hunt-class escort destroyers, preparations for the immediate use of convoys in case of war, the Shadow Aircraft factories, prototype orders for the new heavy bombers, to name just a few.
British successes under Churchill owed a lot to to Chamberlain's foresight.
New research has also revealed that Chamberlain was far from being the 'naive old buffer' he is often depicted as. He knew for a fact that he was making a pact with the devil, and could only hope for a positive outcome.
It wasn't Hitler who set a trap, and baited Chamberlain. It was actually the other way around. By signing, and only by signing a proposition for lasting peace, Hitler was forced to make his intentions clear. After March 1939, no amount of Nazi propaganda and misdirection could cover up Hitler's territorial ambitions anymore.
I don't understand the almost religious obsession some people have of historical figures. To me, both Churchill and Chamberlain were merely human beings, with strengths and weaknesses, same as all of us. Like all of us, historical figures get some things right, and some things wrong.
Some Churchill fans get extremely upset when their hero is criticized. It's considered almost blasphemy to criticize him, making an objective discussion almost impossible.
This discussion is a breath of fresh air, a nice change from the usual.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sophie Dockx Spot on with your analysis again :-)
Yes, there is definitely something like a 'national mindset', which makes it very difficult to discuss controversial topics concerning the history or current events of GB (but also the USA) with citizens of these nations.
Mind you, I hate generalizations, and I've had great discussions about history with Americans and Brits. So, off course there are many exceptions to this phenomena.
However, when discussing the national history of GB and the USA, people quickly get offended, and quickly take a valid cause for criticism as a personal affront.
This seldom happens when discussing history with citizens of other nations or states.
It seems as if excessive patriotism is the cause.
Excessive patriots can't accept criticism, and every and any form of criticism is almost immediately interpreted as a personal attack.
Frustrating, to say the least....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Agreed.
Yes, of course 'honorable and righteous' countries also blockade their neutral neighbors, as the RN did with more than 30,000,000 Dutch, Danes and Swedes, who wanted nothing whatsoever to do with the power mongers struggle to be "king of the mountain", yet were included in a long distance blockade anyway.
Note, such an action was not sanctioned by the Hague Convention....
British excuse? "We didn't want to risk our ships in a close blockade of German ports...."
Note, nobody starved to death, but personal fortunes were ruined, companies went bust, and by 1918 food strikes and turmoil were the order of the day....
What a nice way to treat innocent people :-(
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Flam1ngicecream As far as I'm concerned, it has little to do with any political mindset.
It has more to do with a general human characteristic which is a willingness to be led, rather than take an initiative.
In most human interactions, whether it is business, war, social events, whatever...
In almost any situation of human interaction, most prefer to follow. It's what's often referred to as 'the herd instinct'. Simply doing what everybody else does. Taking the 'safe' option, rather than leaning out to be different.
War mongers simply make use of this characteristic.
It happens in all countries, but sticking to the subject of 'USA and war', it doesn't matter whether we are talking about the explosion of the Maine in 1898, or WMDs in 2003. The 'recipe for success' (the resulting effect) is the same.
Lie to the people, couple that with a whole lot of fear and war mongering...and presto, they've got the war that they want.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
relating I'm not an expert, but there is no such thing as a mathematical linear increase or decrease in population figures.
If you look at graphs of the development of the earth's population, you will notice that it did not increase linearly. It increased gradually, and then suddenly exploded during the 19th and 20th centuries.
If a population decide to have less children, the EXACT opposite will take place.
The population will decrease slightly each year for a longer period, and then suddenly drop very rapidly.
So, the solution to your examples of Japan, vs. France, Scandinavian countries or Belgium?
The demographic decline in France, Belgium and Scandinavian countries set in at the turn of the 19th century already. France already had a demographic problem during WW1 and WW2, meaning that there were far too few young men for the armed forces, because in France, families were already much smaller at the turn of the 19th century.
Therefore, the crash (very sharp drop, or the 'population implosion')) is already setting in at this very moment.
Opposed to this is the population development in Japan. Japanese had big families right on into the 1960s and 70s. Then, suddenly, the families became smaller.
So, Japan is still in the phase of the 'gradual decrease' ( a phase in which France and Belgium found themselves in the 20s and 30s already).
Don't worry, the crash will set in in a few decades there too. They will also need to look at immigration.
There is no need to resort to religion for solutions.
There's no invisible God steering anything.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Marcus I. Keil As Jake said, the study of history isn't complete unless the interested person learns to distinguish between the meanings of certain key words.
For example, we have 'the pretext' as opposed to 'the valid reason'.
Hitler did not invade Poland, in order to 'avenge poor ethnic Germans'. Of course, the mistreatment cannot be excused, but this was not why Hitler attacked. You mentioned the first documented atrocity against ethnic Germans being the 31. August. How do you explain then, that the the first date of the attack on Poland was fixed for the 27th August? (this attack date was cancelled by Hitler, literally the last minute, on the night of the 26th)
How can something which happened on the 31st, be a justification for something which was initially planned to commence on the 27th?
Furthermore, the intention behind the attack was clearly to wipe Poland off the map. If not, why did Hitler form at least a remnant of a free Polish nation, even a puppet one, for the areas with overwhelming Polish populations?
The 'poor Germans' was clearly a pretext.
It was an invented justification, in order to fool the German population into believing that the invasion was a just cause.
2
-
Marcus I. Keil What evidence do you have for the mass killing of ethnic German before 1st September 1939?
Apart from a quick mention by Hitler in a speech justifying the war, there is no solid evidence for this allegation.
Secondly, it doesn't even make sense. In case you have forgot, the Germans won that war (invasion of Poland), so where are the books,newspaper articles, and Int Red Cross reports about mass murder and mass graves? Why didn't the Nazis call in neutral examiners (similar to Katyn), to document, and store (in neutral countries), the evidence of these alleged crimes?They did so when they discovered Katyn, so why didn't they do it in October or November 1939?
As for your allegation of Stalin attacking Finland and East Poland.
You seem to confuse 'nations' with 'friends in real life'. Nations or states don't have friends, only interests. This is a fact, and nations don't fight wars, in the same way you might come to the aid of friend being attacked by crooks. In case a nations interests are not involved, there is also little incentive to send young men to die. That is the bottom line.
Apart from that, there is also a 'logical' explanation why GB and France did not declare war on the SU in 1939.
The history of Eastern Poland is entirely different from that of the Corridor and Danzig.
Danzig was 'signed away' to Poland after WW1 (Versailles), and according to international law, it was a multinational agreement, with guarantors (mainly France).
Eastern Poland was stolen by the Poles after a war with the SU in the early-20s. It was a bilateral agreement (only Poland and the SU), and there were no international guarantors for the territorial changes. Furthermore, the population of these ares were predominantly (over 90%) Ukrainians, White Russians, and Lithuanians.
Why should British and French soldiers die in a war, to avoid the return of Ukrainians and Russians back into the SU?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Michael Moore No LINK. Sorry.
Where?
Instead of calling names, why don't you try again...
Bear in mind, that you made a statement, and now have to follow it up. For example by quotes made by foreign politicians, speeches, or interviews with thousands of people ALL chanting 'glory, glory USA, 'murica' yeah, USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA.....'
Wait a minute...oh, yes, I AM confused.
Only stupid Americans do that...LOL.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar.
Washington DC s strategy is constant, using a geographical position of power.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equilibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equilibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to, and gaslighting the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequilibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@angelperez3750 Correct. He probably immediately recognized the intentions behind the Israeli "peace offers," as being "piece offers." [a littke "piece" more land here, a little "piece" more over there...]
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
2
-
2
-
The USA had wanted to control the Pacific Rim as their "outer periphery" ever since Matthew Perry's 1853 "visit" to Tokyo Bay to coerce Japan out of isolation. Read the strategy papers. Only the American Civil War, the European powers' intentions to also enter the Asia Pacific region (era of imperialism), and the need to focus on the USA for a short respite (Era of Reconstruction), saved these island nations at the time...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era
...from the same fate of Hawaii or the Philippines ("morphed" as geopolitical staging areas, or use as imperialist proxies for US systemic expansion) after the 1890s.
Reality at the time? The "tribe" Japan was simply too big, too well-organized, too unified, and too far away (technological stand during the 19th century) from being "an easy pushover" like Spain or the Kingdom of Hawaii.
One could say that the Manifest Destiny didn't stop when it reached the US West Coast. It continued into the Pacific and was one of the "march routes" of US imperialism. The other being southwards into South America (Monroe Doctrine).
With these "doctrines", by Washington DC, which have a long US history (there are dozens of similar examples of divide and rule) the power players stated their intentions to "rule by division", carving up these regions into smaller "divisions" which were easier to access and CONTROL (mostly with money, and favoritism).
Perry stated at some point that he wished for the USA to take Formosa as US overseas territory as well, but Japan beat the USA to it (1895).
Now they are back.
Taiwan must be "morphed" to become a US asset and proxy to encircle China. A "next Ukraine." (Ukraine as Roman-era style "buck catcher" to encroach on Russia from Eurasia's western side).
Also keep a watch-out for the advocates of imperialism, and the apologists of imperialism.
Their "narratives" have not changed much over the centuries, and these narratives rhyme in time.
Their techniques rhyme too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: WRONG.
It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid ze divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
The Big Lie is the power of the divide and rule/conquer technique, and even the Nazis hid their "Big Lie"-conspiracy theory, behind an even bigger lie: how they intended to play this game until they got into power after their failed coup d'etat.
The "Big Lie" is not a myth but a misrepresentation of the truth.
It is the power of "divide and rule/conquer" which lurks behind every strategy they follow, in order to gain.
No human being has ever come up with a means to overcome this age-old technique of ruling over billions of people, because it is predicated on human nature itself, which is enduring.
No power player wants to become associated with authoritarian, or "colonial" tactics and strategies, or Nazis, so they cannot use it as a political means to attack rivals: it will immediately result in blowback.
The "Big Lie" conspiracy masked the divide and rule technique.
No power player can ever accuse any other power player of using it, since it will immediately backfire: the accusation of using the technique themselves, which in most cases of intent of gain will even apply***. The disguise usually comes in the form of scapegoating or another form of appeal to the emotion of listeners, or addressing and fortifying their already existing biases.
"Scapegoating" = an appeal to lower emotions of potential supporters.
In our divided societies, appealing to these biases might always be that tiny little "weight" that tilts the scale in very tightly run political elections.
Most power players read books on strategy, with the intention of using these strategies for personal gain, not because they wish to benefit you (the individual).
There is always the urge to defend own favored systems, when one reads perceived "attacks" on these favored systems or own heroes, and the beloved own "-isms", which also reveal standard procedures, meaning the "attacker" soon falls into predetermined pathways to deflect and obfuscate from the core theory...
Footnotes:
**only applies in competitive "intent of gain" systems, *not benevolent forms of reciprocal human interaction which are 100% fair...
2
-
2
-
2
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." -- Walter E. Williams
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
David Ben-Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
“Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. … Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice.”
— David Ben Gurion. Quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan’s “Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.
“We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return.”
David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar’s Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Palestine was recreated out of an Ottoman Empire province, by the British Empire to act as a geostrategic barrier between the Heartland and the Suez Canal. The Canal was of course, at the time the "umbilical cord to India", and the lifeline of all possessions of the British Empire in the East: Hong Kong, Aden, Singapore, Australia, Malaysia, etc., etc., etc.
[Google: The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History]
The plan?
Allow whites to flood in, and to buy land.
Once these whites became the majority, these "property owners" would naturally "protect" their own "land" against any developing threat from the north, directed at the "balls of Empire", so to speak...
Smart...
But, it turned out a bit different.
The "property owners" became terrorists (Irgun, the Stern Gang, etc.), and started killing their "enablers", British soldiers and officials...
After Empire collapsed after WW2, the USA stepped in and took over the role of Alpha Male...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Die Völker Eurasiens und die Welt, einschließlich Westeuropas (die meisten davon sind Christen) und Westasiens (die meisten davon sind Semiten), wurden jahrhundertelang von Fremden gespalten und beherrscht.
Weil es einfacher ist, Menschen aufgrund persönlicher Unterschiede zu spalten, als sie aufgrund ihrer Gemeinsamkeiten zu vereinen. Strategisch ambivalente Fremde nutzen dies zu ihrem eigenen Vorteil. In der Ära des europäischen Imperialismus schleppte London zunächst seinen Juniorpartner Paris mit, und nach 1945, als der Einfluss der europäischen Kolonialmächte abnahm, übernahm Washington DC einfach die Rolle des Spalters (während des Kalten Krieges war die ganze Welt der Spielplatz). Jetzt besteht die Absicht einfach darin, die Einheit Eurasiens zu vermeiden, um über die Andersdenkenden zu „herrschen“, was dem klassischen „Teile und Herrsche“-Prinzip entspricht.
„Das Hauptinteresse der Vereinigten Staaten – für die wir seit einem Jahrhundert Kriege führen (den Ersten, Zweiten und den Kalten Krieg) – war die Beziehung zwischen Deutschland und Russland. Denn vereint sind sie die einzige Macht, die uns bedrohen könnte. Und wir müssen sicherstellen, dass das nicht passiert. … Für die Vereinigten Staaten … ist die größte Angst deutsche Technologie, deutsches Kapital und russische natürliche Ressourcen, russische Arbeitskräfte als einzige Kombination, die den Vereinigten Staaten seit Jahrhunderten Angst einjagt. Wie also läuft das ab? Nun, die USA haben ihre Karten bereits auf den Tisch gelegt. Es ist die Linie vom Baltikum bis zum Schwarzen Meer.“ – George Friedman, Stratfor, Februar 2015
Heute sind ihre Führer zu schwach, um sich zu vereinen.
Endlose Kriege, ständige Meinungsverschiedenheiten, unter Einsatz des IMPERIALISMUS.
„Hebel“ der Lügen und des Misstrauens einsetzen, unter Einsatz von MACHTSPIELERN.
Favoriten schaffen: Bevorzugung der STELLVERTRETER, die sich beugen.
Mit dem Finger zeigen, überall sonst, unter Einsatz der MACHT der Mainstream-Medien.
Teile und Herrsche.
Der älteste Trick der Welt...
Tausend Jahre alt. Tausend Jahre bewährt.
Wer hat die MACHT? Wer hatte (in allen historischen Fällen im Nahen Osten/in der Levante) den GEOGRAPHISCHEN VORTEIL, alle anderen kleinen Geldbringer (Werkzeuge und andere MACHTinstrumente im Stil der Römerzeit) erreichen zu können, aber selbst aufgrund eines geografischen, technologischen, organisatorischen, militärischen, strategischen oder politischen Vorteils zu jedem beliebigen Zeitpunkt einer historischen Zeitlinie nicht erreicht werden konnte?
„Teile und Herrsche“ als Standardstrategie der Macht und damit als Ursache nahezu aller Konflikte auf der Welt verbindet die Punkte auf der Zeitachse der Geschichte.
Wer hatte (in allen historischen Fällen im Nahen Osten/in der Levante) den GEOGRAPHISCHEN VORTEIL, weit von den Ereignissen entfernt zu sein, die sich aus den eigenen Einmischungen und politischen Aktivitäten ergaben, und alle anderen Regionen erreichen zu können, aber selbst als Hegemonie zu keinem beliebigen Zeitpunkt einer historischen Zeitachse erreicht werden konnte?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. Alles, was sie wollen, ist Frieden, und weil sie das sagen, muss es wahr sein, aber wer sammelt die Teile des großen Reichtums und der systemischen Gewinne ein, wenn alle anderen es nicht geschafft haben, sich zu vereinen?
Andere Reiche. Andere Ära. Gleiche Spiele ...
In ihren eigenen Erzählungen ist das „Imperium“ und der „Spalter“ (Teile und Herrshe Strategie) IMMER der „Gute“.
Die Opposition, die Einheit in einer Region will, ist der „Böse“.
Wir sind nicht in der Unterzahl. Wir sind un-organisierter. Machtloser in ein System monetarisierte Narrative …
PIC: Politischer Industriekomplex
FIC: Finanzieller Industriekomplex
NIC: Narrativer Industriekomplex
MIC: Militärischer Industriekomplex
CIP: Kultureller Industriekomplex
Vergessen Sie „3D-Schach“. Alles, was Sie wissen, ist eine „Variante“ der Realität. Sie spielen „5D-Schach“ mit den Köpfen von 2D-Dame-Spielern, in Menschen die denken, sie seien „schlau“.
Außerdem funktioniert es nur innerhalb eines technologischen Zeitrahmens: Für das Britische Empire war es so, als die Seemacht „die Welt beherrschte“ und das eigene Kernland „unerreichbar“ war und von dieser uneinnehmbaren Festung aus alle anderen „teilen“ und so eine Vereinigung verhindern konnte. Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg und heute wird es nur so lange funktionieren, wie die Kombination aus politischem Einfluss, Atomwaffen und kultureller Hegemonie alle anderen überwältigen und eine Vereinigung aller anderen verhindern kann.
Das amerikanische „Kernland“ ist bereits nicht mehr unerreichbar, die USA spielen also ein gefährliches Spiel. Die Absicht, andere zu spalten, könnte genau den gegenteiligen Effekt erzielen.
2
-
2
-
The "next Ukraine."
The new proxy in the setup phase.
The Maidan "color revolution" is being repeated as we speak, as US modus operandi.
Georgia/Divide and Rule
Here is what they tell you these days: Something along the lines of "Georgian leaders are all Moscow puppets," and the oppression of the poor people via a "foreign influence law," and how it is all about current leaders being Moscow stooges....
Here is what they won't tell you: That the foreign state/empire (Washington DC) which pays these protesters or their handlers, via such agencies as the CIA affiliated NED (of ex-Maidan fame) already have their own act to avoid foreign meddling in the USA.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act
What the MSM won't tell you is that the foreign meddling in Georgia came FIRST, and that the act attempting to regulate this foreign meddling by Tiflis, came AFTER that.
A typical act of hypocrisy and deception, as per strategy of divide and rule, to avoid continental European/Eurasian unity implemented by Washington DC, as it has been for the past 200 years, using various deceptive divide and rule techniques. First by London, and very convenient for Washington DC. Then after 1945, after the British Empire was driven into the ground using economic warfare means, directly taken over by Washington DC as explained by Michael Hudson in his book Super Imperialism.
GRAND STRATEGY/GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Georgia, and millions of Georgians, are simply being set up as the "next Ukraine." Such a setting up of neighbors against neighbors has a long history and it is considered the absolute "acme of professionalism" by Washington DC to set up others to fight and die, so that US leaders in faraway Washington DC can haggle and arguing how much the lives of these locals are worth, all in efforts to score brownie points amongst their adoring fans.
To "invest" in such death, is considered the Washington DC norm, as stated by several Washington DC advocates for US global hegemony.
The scale of such setups is not important, nor how it is justified: It is divide and rule.
Such selective FAVORATISM is indicative of a divide and rule strategy, by an outside power.
Whether it is currently Tiflis, or historically London which was being FAVORED by the POWER with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE which was Washington DC, it remains a divide and rule strategy.
It does not matter if anybody tells you it is a divide and rule strategy, or not, because the strategy is given away by the EVENTS.
One might chest-thump around about how powerful ones "fwiends" are, but there will always be a PRICE TAG.
See Ukraine today, the "past FAVORITE."
There is always a price tag.
Often the excuses for meddling mirror each other, from "we must help the poor peopke" to "but, but, it was voluntary".
Regardless of any apologetics it remains DIVIDE AND RULE.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Q: Which war started with a lie?
A: ALL of them...
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Let’s look at US meddling in THEIR world, and Google "wars for oil", shall we?
Or, simply ask yourself the question.
As a "life, liberty and happiness" kinda guy, would you personally have accepted even half the sh*t your leaders have imposed onto others over the past century or so?
Nope...probably not...
2
-
2
-
Even worse than merely "war crimes".
These efforts of "flattening entire cities" were war crimes which aided the commies.
Who likes commies here anybody? Speak up!
Right.
Sadly, I don't know if our leaders are stupid or just incompetent.
Because in the end, the 2nd only real winner was......Stalin.
Why we shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win)
Stalin, or why we should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary to aid D-Day, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why it shouldn't have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion...
Why everything should have been done so that the war lasts as long as possible, in order that both sides become exhausted...
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939 [attributed to a speech he made from the memory of those present]
Yup, that Stalin.
So many of "our boys" were sent to their deaths to make his "commie dream world" become a reality.
Our leaders gave away half of the world to a crook and mass-murderer, and we then spent 50 years, trillions of Pounds and Dollars, and hundreds of thousands of body bags, fighting him in the other half...
2
-
2
-
British elites did not advocate war "because of Belgium", but because of a policy the lords in London had decided upon loooong before the Kaiser was "building ships", and "wanted colonies".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
A policy called Balance of Power, which practically dictated that GB would always join the weaker side, irrelevant of "right or wrong", and the only way GB could have realistically stayed out of the continental war about to unfold, was to abstain from the selfappointed role of "balancer" for the continent.
It was British leaders, deciding in London, and this free choice had nothing to do with anything any continental leaders did, or didn't do.
Why did GB join WW1?
As simple as asking "Would GB have stayed out, under any circumstance?" To which the answer is no.
The choice of making an entire people an enemy by default, long before they had even done anything to deserve the status of "enemy", had far reaching effects...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
2
-
2
-
2
-
A little bit of reality, rather than cherry-picked and skewed history 😮
PART I
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), (§§§footnote) the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed." SOURCE: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive
US strategist in these think tanks lay out the scheme of what was going to be the new post-war reality, as a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" for the USA to control. Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under US supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.)
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." Note, all words in quotes were actual words used IN THIS OFFICIAL US DOCUMENT, and the thesis and its quoted sources can all be downloaded for free, from the www, and using these key words provided for your search engine.
---------------------------------
After around 1940, ... (quote) "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident (§§§footnote) – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. *Within this framework the role of France, Germany and ENGLAND of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations..."
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world."
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.", Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
2
-
PART II
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
-----------------------------------
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
§§§footnote
If you wish to know more about exactly how the British Empire was "being dismantled,"....respond...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
PART II
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
-----------------------------------
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
§§§footnote
If you wish to know more about exactly how the British Empire was "being dismantled," the below comments section is comprehensive.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
„Wenn zwei Nachbarländer gegeneinander kämpfen, dann wissen Sie dass die USA eines besucht haben.“ – Nelson Mandela (Zeitpunkt: Kalten Krieg/Region der Welt: Afrika)
Die Aussage ist nicht ganz richtig.
Wenn zwei Nachbarn gegeneinander kämpfen, dann wissen Sie dass zuvor ein Imperium dort war.
Es gibt auch den alten Witz: „Wenn zwei Fische kämpfen, dann war das Britische Imperium dort.“
Das ist eine Binsenweisheit über Imperialismus im Allgemeinen und darüber, wie Teile und Herrsche funktioniert.
Nachbarn warden gegeneinander aufgehetzt, indem Sie eine Vielzahl von immer gleichbleibenden Techniken und Strategien verwenden. Mit absoluter Sicherheit machten die Stammesführer Europas auf die gleiche Weise Witze über das Römische Reich, indem sie öffentlich ihre „Pax Romana“ zur Schau stellten, während sie im Hintergrund insgeheim einen „Nachbarn“ bevorzugten und ihn mit jeder beliebigen Begründung gegen die anderen aufhetzten.
Außenseiter werden in einen Staat kommen (auch schleichend politisch oder über NGOs), und diese Außenseiter versuchen, den Grundstein für die Teilung zu legen, indem sie den „neu gefundenen Freund“ gegen seine Nachbarn aufhetzen, und wenn dies in einem „Staat“ (Status quo) nicht gelingt, wird er einfach zu den Nachbarn gehen und dasselbe versuchen. Je mehr Nachbarn, desto größer sind die Chancen auf eine erfolgreiche Gewaltenteilung, was dem „Teiler“ zugutekommt. Denn wenn diese Nachbarn am Ende alle gegeneinander kämpfen, saugt der „Teiler“ im Hintergrund Gewinne (verschiedener Art) ab. Solche eingeführten und genutzten Spaltungen entspringen nicht unbedingt böser Absicht, da die meisten Teilnehmer einer Teile-und-herrsche-Strategie absolut keine Ahnung davon haben, dass sie zu „Akteuren“ in einem großen Spiel geworden sind, dessen Ausmaß ihnen unbekannt bleibt. Sogar diejenigen mit guten Absichten (politische Tauben) können Spaltung schaffen.
Keine noch so große Anzahl von Vereinbarungen, Abkommen, Verhandlungen oder Fähigkeiten wird die „Spaltungstäter“ jemals aufhalten, denn nichts, was sie unterzeichnen, wird ihre spalterischen Machenschaften stoppen.
2
-
2
-
Footnote:
Note that according to Machiavelli, the "princes" connected to the land and who benefited from their hereditary rule were also the GATEKEEPERS and were connected to what they saw as theirs. Whether one likes this style of inherited wealth and power or not, their role was the gatekeepers of being the managers of own affairs. Opposed to that, in strategy and human nature, the "mercenary" is the OUTSIDER (internationalists/globalists) who came/come or the profit and gain and who are NOT "connected" to the land and its peoples at all, and place their own interests, often vested interests, BEFORE the people who live on the land. This narrative is often distorted today into meaning that "to be a Machiavelli is to be an a-hole" which is a distortion of what the book was about. Machiavelli states clearly to keep ones "princes" in POWER, for to lose them would mean losing the GATEKEEPERS, who via their own vested interests, also protect the people who live in entire regions of the world. Via Trojan Horses, "democracies" can be CAPTURED (culturally-, economically-, politically-, emotionally and militarily), as a process which can be studied as the actors reveal themselves through their actions/events. This can be studied as systemic analyses.
2
-
Asking the wrong questions on a limited scope and timeline will not reveal the divide-and-rule technique.
The empire set off on the "G-G Line" from Germany to Greece, during the First Cold War after declaring war ("cold" war/1947).
It advanced to the "B-B Line" from the Baltics to the Black Sea (see footnote) after the "peace" was declared to the plebs after the 1990s, and a bright new future pwomised to all the children of history, believers...
How long do you think it will take for the empire, wriggling and writhing about ("divide-and-rule"), hopping over here and there ("pivoting") before they reach the "A-A Line"?
The goals of the "dividers" who wield the power, is simply that their politics is the continuation of war by other means...
‐-----------
The "B-B Line".
When people start thinking in terms of dichotomies like winning/losing, left/right wing, us/them, right/wrong, unity/division, they are already all "losers."
Think in terms of a desirable outcome. If not, lose.
Outsiders fabricate the "crescent of crises" around your heartland.
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
If outsiders come from outside and start drawing lines on the map, through your homelands without asking the people who live there.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. They allow outsiders to play the cards FOR them.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS. Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Rome. London. Washington DC.
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rinzler9171 Agreed then.
Because there were basically two types of US Presidents (administrations). One "leaning inwards" = concentrating on the USA and its people aka "isolationism"...
And those leaning outwards. Set on expanding the US sphere of influence at the expense of other powers, dragging the USA (and the overwhelming percentage of inhabitants, against their will, into international wars).
Wilson was an American Century advocate, and dragged the USA into WW1.
FDR was also, and did the same concerning WW2.
Because all throughout the late-19th/early-20th centuries, while Europe armed itself to the teeth, wasting away their inherence on weapons, the USA made use of this disunity (remaining isolationist, concentrating on the sphere of interest protected y the Monroe Doctrine), and were saving their pennies for a rainy day.
US military spending, a fraction of that of Europe.
For US leaders set on expansion had a plan, greatly aided by their geographical and political isolation (aka "geopolitics")....
In a nutshell, to hang in there long enough, until Europe had torn itself to shreds. And if not, also okay. They were already the undisputed regional power controlling "the new world" of North and South America.
A win-win.
1) A destructive war in Europe = a win for Washington DC/The American Century advocates, and their "hard power" approach.
2) No destructive war in Europe = a win for the isolationist, with their focus on trade, soft power, etc.
In case of war in Europe then, step in and pick up the (financial) "debris"...in a nutshell:
The American Century.
2
-
@rinzler9171 100% agreed.
And that was no coincidence, but known as "never let a crisis/war" go to waste.
Especially possible to implement, if an own geographical position allows it to remain distant from those squabbling and scrambling for more power, potentially clashing.
I say "no coincidence", because in the leadup to WW1, the USA was the "new power", whose political position was basically (in a nutshell) "to observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”
Washington DC was very good at "biding time" and "keeping a low profile" until they were strong enough to eclipse "the old Europe", and not to care anymore.
With the "leverage" geography gave them (distance from squabbling Europeans), plus a drastically increasing power, as technology shrunk the world, they knew they would just have to wait long enough until the eternally squabbling Europeans had torn themselves to shreds.
Unlike the arsenals of M-A-I-N they also used another "weapon".
Well-known at the time, and formulated into words by John Quincy Adams: "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country: One is by sword and one is by debt."
Washington DC: "If your rivals are making a mistake, don't interrupt them."
2
-
@rinzler9171 Yes, FDR is greatly admired for "winning WW2", although his favoritism of the madman/mass-murderer Stalin meant that we in the west ended up giving away half the world, in return for "trusting Stalin's signature".
Dumbest move ever, and we ended up fighting the communist we supported in WW2, in the other half of the world, for the next 50 years during the Cold War.
Of course, Stalin the crook never had any intention to stick to any agreement he had made under the duress of WW2, with the Nazis breathing down his neck intent on his destruction.
After the war was over, the "niceties" were soon forgotten, treaties torn up like "scraps of paper", and we were forced to defend "our half" of the world (China, Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, ME, Africa, etc.) by overwhelming use of military/financial power.
2
-
@rinzler9171 Of course, another option existed to "the Big Three".
We in the west shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win). In other words, just as much Lend-Lease as needed, but not enough for the commie to storm all the way into Central Europe.
We should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary to aid D-Day, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why shouldn't it have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion?
Because we owed Stalin nothing.
Not single Jeep and not a single Studebaker truck, carrying commies into Central Europe by the millions.
Not a single drop of blood.
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
So our leaders sacrificed own soldiers, own resources, and millions of own dollars, to hand over half the world to the commies. Only to end up fighting them in the other half for the next fifty years. Korea, Vietnam, the ME. Thousands of body bags of "our boys".
Rather silly to "help Stalin", if we could have just let them "slug it out to utter exhaustion, and then march over the ruins, a fate Stalin had intended for us.
2
-
@rinzler9171 Yes, top US leaders must have known that the Japanese were going to attack.
Mainly because
1) not leaving Japanese negotiators the diplomatic "face saving" way out
2) British troops in Malaysia were already on high alert, following the spotting of Japanese convoys 2 days before Pearl Harbor
3) the Japanese attack on Malaysia took place 2 hours before Pearl Harbor (on Dec 8th, but because it was on the other side of the International Date Line, it Dec 7th in Hawaii)
Not saying they should have known it was going to be PH, but a high alert of all Pacific bases should have been called for.
It should have been inexcusable to be caught like that, totally unprepared, and then blaming the local base commander (scapegoating).
The embargo you mentioned was of course because of China, which the Japanese had invaded in 1937. Then, to cut off supplies to China, the Japanese invaded French Indochina, directly triggering the US oil and scrap metal embargo.
So, not for the first time, it was "Nam" leading to a US war in the Pacific. Ironical that the US would be fighting in East Asia twice because of the weakness of France (first during WW2, later after the commies kicked the French out of Vietnam).
IMO (debatable) the US should never have made a deal with Stalin concerning Manchuria.
Seeing that Stalin had already tried to gain China twice before (invasion of Xinjiang in 1934, and supporting Mao's Long March) they should have known that Stalin would not be bound by any "honor" or "signature" on a piece of paper.
The fact that China is socialist today, and a western rival, and a united regional power, is a direct result of that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The events later called WW1 & WW2 were a part of the same conflagration which started around the year 1900, with the naval powers encircling their continental neighbours.
For the American Century after the year 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger chunk of land than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": the technique used by Washington DC was the same, which is to make use of existing divisions. An ACTIVE means, of making use of such divisions, is known as the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy. A proactive means to further own interests at the expense of others, is to favor some (increasing the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decreasing the power of the snubbed).
For the ACTIVELY ENGAGED "divider" the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in order to achieve the useful division for the higher power, are not important. These are the 99% ancillary details of history. As an example of such "99% ancillary details, we can refer to any speech, by any politician ever. Empty words, directed at the listeners limbic brain system. See above speech. BECAUSE..it doesn't matter how division is implemented, or how existing divides are deepened, or who aids for whatever reasons, or whether those aiding and abetting division are even aware that they are aiding division: what matters is that it is implemented.
For the divider it is not important why the tools cooperate, but the fact that the tools cooperate in creating division in overpowering a chunk of the planet somewhere.
Why and that are different premises...
The empire in search of gain disguised by the "only interests"-narrative, does not care about the "why" or "what" you think is "true"...
The conflagration unfolding after 1914 was another European 30 years war (with a 20-year break in between) and had virtually the same powers set up against each other, with a few exceptions (Japan and Italy as newbies or "turncoats"). Details are not important. They are the "99%" of history, which bear no impact on HOW events unfolded.
The powers set up thus were:
1) the naval powers (Great Britain/USA) with their continental "buck catchers" (like France after 1904, and Russia after 1907, for example).
against:
2) the continental alliances, which were encircled and kept from reaching sufficient spheres of influence to grow, by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy started as premeditated action by the naval powers around 1900.
In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", which is a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The end effect of the setup of 1) and 2) was that Western- and Central Europe were virtually destroyed as centers of power, and the USA then used the effect to grind the British Empire into a more manageable "junior partner"-status by use of a premeditated strategy planned after 1940, just after the start of the "second round" of this conflagration. Or as Ricky Gervais would quip, "kick the midget British Empire" in the "bollocks" because after WW2 London was so weak that it could not forge a useful "pattern of relations" (George Kennan, see below) to fight back, and save its own markets from their "best friends".
After 1945 the USA used its own might as "hammer" and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). Stalin (Moscow) of course, smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and the other remaining European states' weaknesses, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2, overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centred imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003. Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power. When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
London poured their division upon the planet, incl. their neighbours, waging the finger and exposing every weakness, in search of alignments for own gain, however carefully hidden. But in the town of Washington DC today, it is well-known that their (economically) fat and (systemically) psychopathic "saviours" economically thrashed London in their hour of weakness after 1945, to within inches of their (colonial) lives, and took their beautiful Empire away from them. Inspired by "The Wall/Pink Floyd": Take out one "brick" at a time, hoping the "bricks" won't notice how the entire entity is weakened...
Thus, they pulled the bricks out of the wall of European strength, until it collapsed. And that collapse included London, and their Empire, not altruistically but the causal effect of London's wish to CONTROL or dominate their neighbors. Their own failure came about as an effect of their own inbuilt systemic greed and individual stupidity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MusMasi Just ignore him.
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The USA is a casino masquerading as a country.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries so that any economic surplus generated by that country is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US government, and especially to US bondholders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is the dollar tributary of the weaker economies, and junior partners, being vacuumed off in order to please the controlling master.
"The USA is not wise enough to rule the world, we shall merely own the world." - George Washington (attr.)
Such warnings are, as mostly or mainly, ignored.
For those who challenge these systems and maintain their "princes" (Machiavelli/gatekeepers), citizens are perpetually at risk of being portrayed as the collective "villains" of history according to the US MIMAC-constructed BLACK LEGEND. The United States purports to act as a neutral third party, yet it is, in fact, the primary instigator of crises and conflicts where its "interests prevail." Historical evidence, such as the Nye Commission of the 1930s, illustrates that Washington DC has consistently been an aggressive actor, perpetually seeking proxies (favoritism as a strategy of divide-and-rule/conquer) to execute long-standing objectives aimed at subjugating other nations and transforming them into "dollar tributaries," or, if that is unfeasible, to fragment global regions. Terms such as balkanize, fragmentation, delineating borders, "our allies fighting for freedom," puppet regimes, and corporate interests consistently reflect a strategy of divide-and-rule, masked by the narratives of those who perceive themselves as innocent doves, believing they are a benevolent empire "always assisting the virtuous and the weak and oppressed."
Presently, Russia is viewed as the pariah for the "future carving knives," and the future BLACK LEGEND is being written right now as you're watching on, by employing a repertoire of US tactics and schemes that can be analyzed since 1776.
Ask the First Nations or Mexico and look at the strategy employed on them: it was the policy of divide-and-rule/conquer, and it remains persistent.
--------------------------------
MIMAC = Military Industrial Media Academic Congressional complex.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Very funny.
But also sadly true, and Stalin knew it.
Churchill was a terrible grand strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created facts.
The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, resources, skilled workers for the Gulags, not to mention new 100 million commie slaves in Romania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much...so kind of you", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half.
Also very funny.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Back in the 1990s Tel Aviv was sneakily trying to introduce Apartheid, at the same time South Africa was busy ending it under international pressure. Of course, Israel was (according to imperialist logic) "doing nothing wrong"...
At the time the world was applauding South Africa as it ended Apartheid, and simultaneously the world was applauding Israel's attempt at introducing Apartheid, branding it as just "trying to create peace."
Note, whilst singling out the Palestinians/Arafat as being "unreasonable" and "rejecting the Israeli olive leaf of peace...blah, blah..." as the accepted narrative of the Mainstream Media.
Israel never intended for Palestinians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, "We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [edit: the historical examples being the "Apartheid dependencies," of the "Bantustan"] ... and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines ... The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term ... Jerusalem (would be) united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty ... will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev. We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth."
All the questionable clauses, eluding reality by use of the typical vague political doublespeak, have been highlighted.
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control. What that would have meant, we see today. Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city. Notice how Rabin, commonly held as a dove in politics, never used the term "full sovereign state" when he referred to this "Palestine", but the term "less than a state." Did you spot the use of [Israel's] "natural growth"? Critical question... Where to? Where would Israelis/Zionists "naturally grow" to, if there were equal neighbors, as a balanced power, which could actually stop any such Zionist settler "growth". The Jordan Valley, extends BOTH sides of the Jordan River. Now, I'm sure that was just another slip-up too, of people who don't understand simple geography. Whatever. It is fairly clear what they wanted, and there are historical examples for this: the "pool of cheap labor" within the own borders, as the concept of the "Bantustan" was for the RSA, given a little bit of "independence" to manage own affairs, but de facto/de jure powerless to stop the CONTROLLING power, intended to be Jerusalem, as Jweish capital city with the right to introduce permit laws, etc. It is literally what RSA did with their "Bantustans". Back then the people could not be fooled. They saw through the deceit, and rightfully called it out for what it was: just another Apartheid ploy to avoid the rise of political equals.
Sad reality? Today masses of fools are being mislead into praising Israel's attempted implementation of Apartheid as an attempt at peace, while at the same time denouncing a similar scheme actually implemented by the RSA in stages after WW2, as being bigoted/racist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here is the situation, from a neutral analysis:
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal: a few grams of weed...
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, patrolled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and gain (an advantage, if others struggle, fight, and lose) is closer to what happened.
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for influence and markets.
That is essentially what TIK History is explaining here.
The USA and divide Europe and rule the world...
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
Regarding the theory in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's leaders, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement, amongst other less "valuable" suitors (like Germany, see below comment), was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped in to avoid any form of continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below).
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises" lol
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the erritories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...lol.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Same with the funding of opposing European leaders and states mentioned here in this video.
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. They would wait.
This is divide-and-rule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You think implementing Apartheid in the 1990s, while SA was aborting it is praiseworthy?
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ambidextrousfapper LOL
OK, have it your way.
" In 2012, a man in Oregon was sentenced to 30 days in jail for collecting rainwater on his property (in a pond). In the state of Oregon, the government owns the rain, and you have to have a special permit to collect and hold it. Other states have laws against rain barrels, which is a huge plastic barrel, usually with an attached filter, that's used to collect rainwater and then water gardens. The important thing to note is that the government can't charge for rainwater freely collected."
Isn't that ridiculous?
So what so ridiculous about doing another human being a favor, not being an arsehole, be nice, and call them whatever the eff they want?
Correct, nothing wrong with it.
If somebody wants me to call him "green alien", or "doctor Smith", or "sir", I'll simply do it.
What's the problem. Why be a snowflake about it.
Why don't you Google "dumb laws", and notice that there will be literally hundreds you won't agree with, yet you don't make a fuss about it do you ?
Why not?
[Note, my question. Please answer it now]
2
-
@thereaction18 Nobody says "the separation of church and state is in the Constitution", but that doesn't mean it's not one of the cornerstones of modern western societies.
From wiki, cos I hate typing :-)
"Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of theEstablishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced to aJanuary 1, 1802, letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."[
That simply means that every religious person can exercise their religion as they damn well please. Doesn't matter if you are a Scientologist, a Baptist, or that guy believing that "God is an alien".
Nobody can stop anybody from believing and exercising whatever the hell they want.
But, what you personally believe, should not influence the beliefs of anybody else.
Remember the history.
These men wanted to learn from the past, and Europe's 1,000-year bloody history of religious infighting, and simply wanted to avoid that the new country they were establishing, would carry on seamlessly in North America.
No religion/church gets special political privilege.
One's beliefs or non-beliefs are a private matter.
2
-
2
-
@Timothy Dyck You make a good point about sport, and to be honest I had to Google it, because I've never heard of it.
I did some research, and discovered that the statistical probability of that happening is next to zero.
Pointing out single cases would again be "anecdotal evidence".
Suffice to say that of the 50,000 Olympic athletes, none are transgender.
Only about 0,5 in our societies are, so that the probability is in fact rare.
In other words it's like you not going to a friend's party, and when asked you say "Well there's a 0,1% chance of a car crash". Suffice to say, people will conclude that there are other reasons for you not going ;-)
My advice?
Deal with it on a case by case manner, and then introduce a scientific way to measure whether they may participate (blood, hormones, etc.). In other words, a simple neutral way to determine whether it should be allowed in a competitive sports.
On the other hand, what about a "normal woman" with an abnormally high "male" blood (testosterone levels). Should such women then also be banned from women's sport because they are "not normal"?
Remember that both cases would be human beings with a physical advantage based on a brain morphed into something which doesn't fit the norm.
Transgender are basically "male brains" born into "female bodies", and vice versa...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Unfortunately, in history, one must often "start" at the consequences of own actions, in order to point out mistakes which happened along the way.
In the big picture of things, spotting mistakes as a contemporary witness is far more difficult.
True today. True at any point in history.
Furthermore, in order to "avoid history repeating itself", one must first admit that mistakes were made.
Also own mistakes.
Because, according to biblical logic: only by "removing the splinters from own eyes", can we avoid "sowing seeds", which we all "reap" at some point.
So here is how European reign and domination of the world ended in 1945, and a few subsequent years (short version, longer version below):
At the end of WW2, the USA (American Century) refused to honor an important treaty Western Allied leaders had made in Quebec.
A treaty/agreement almost nobody had ever heard about.
With that, Washington DC intended to become the sole nuclear power, and not share (as promised per treaty) nukes with London/GB/Empire.
By doing so, the new alpha stated that it did not want an equal power at eye level. They wanted a "junior partner".
And with that, they became the new alpha.
Rule Britania, repealed and replaced by the American Century.
Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana.
Rule the Waves? Let's put it this way. No more "Two Power Standard". Who had "the bigger one"? :-)
Washington DC (The American century) was in a position to "tear up a scrap of paper" and not care what anybody in "old Europe" thought about it.
Washington Internationalism/The American Century, the other "new power" rising across the Atlantic, whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”
It's interesting to google that quote. Of course it refers to a timeless political strategy, which is true at all times, and explains a lot about the headlines we see in the papers today.
Anyway...
Re. the concept of "being able to spot an anomaly" as history unfolded forward. Of course, it does not "happen backwards", but there is a timeline.
Machiavelli's "balance of power".
Of course Machiavelli didn't invent the concept of "balance of power", but was one of the first to put it down in words in western literature.
Would a true Machiavelli have ignored the noticeable change/shift in the "balance" of the powers at around the turn of the Century? (1900)
Note that the reality of the time was that while GB/Empire and the rising USA were roughly equal in "power" at the time (around 1900), only one of these 2 "powers" had the potential to hang on to her power as the world noticeably changed around the contemporary witnesses at the time, and at least for wise leaders, also in the foreseeable future (Washington DC as the firmly established soft power "master/hegemon" in the Americas, vs. London the "still master" of an outdated 1,000+ year old colonial model).
Would a true Machiavelli have snuggled up to a power without being able to "leverage/hedge" any deal (treaty/accord/agreement/etc.) it made?
Would a true Machiavelli have relied on "appeals to emotion" (like "everybody speaking English") to ensure a dominant position?
Last time I checked, "snuggling up" without also being in a position to "leverage" and/or "hedge" a deal, wasn't in the book (The Prince).
Re. the concept of "how history unfolded aroun the turn of the century, around 1900": reality (aka "the truth") created an anomaly in the algorithm on the timeline of history.
Stalin spotted it, and he intended to imitate it.
I'm sure he identified the "weak links" of Western European domination set up by Versailles by the "Big Three", and other post-WW1 treaties, without Moscow being consulted.
The early Communism in One Country advocates in Moscow, soon to become World Communism: "Observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership."
I'm sure he read a lot...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Laut unsere Medien, ist jetzt auf einmal „die Ukraine“ an alles Schuld.
Wo sind all die Horden von Anhängern der „Ukraine-Flagge“-Schwenkern geblieben, die die Ukraine in den letzten drei Jahren bedingungslos angefeuert haben?
Schaut euch mal die Blogs und Kommentarbereiche der MSM an.
Plötzlich sind sie alle verschwunden …
Ein paar Tage und schon sind sie alle weg, zurück in „Mutti's Keller“ und auf der Suche nach den nächsten „Helden“, die sie wie bei Fußballspielen anfeuern können…
Diese Atlantiker.
4 Reiter der Geschichte:
- Krieg (durch bezahlte Söldnerarmeen)
- Eroberung (durch Stellvertreter/proxies)
- Hungersnot (weit weg)
- Tod (für den sich diejenigen entschuldigen, die auf Gewinn aus sind)
Die Strategen und Weltanschauungen der Atlantiker, weit weg von den Spaltungen, die sie fördern und durch Stellvertreter finanzieren, den ständigen Krisen, die sie anzetteln, den kalten Kriegen, für die sie den Grundstein legen, oder den heißen Kriegen die sie anzetteln; und deren Marinen ihnen Zugang zu den Ressourcen der Welt (einschließlich „Humanressourcen“) verschaffen, wollten schon immer lange Kriege, wenn die Aussicht auf systemische Gewinne durch die Nutzung eines geografischen Vorteils (Entfernung von kriegführenden Staaten) bestand oder wenn die Gefahr einer Einheitsbildung in Europa/Eurasien bestand.
Die aktuelle Marschroute des Imperiums, für die aktuelle jüngste und relevante Vergangenheit (auch bekannt als „lebendige Geschichte“ für eine oder zwei Generationen), die begann, als die UdSSR Ende der 1980er Jahre wirtschaftlich ins Straucheln geriet und das „zerteilte Jugoslawien“ das erste Opfer des „Teile und Herrsche“-Prinzips war.
Systemische/ideologische Expansion nach:
- Osteuropa.
- Schwarzmeer-/Balkan-/Kaukasusregion (südliche Zange der Marschroute)
- Skandinavien-/Ostseeregion (nördliche Zange der Marschroute)
Marschieren und marschieren und sich verwandeln und wenn es eine Reaktion oder einen Widerstand gibt, beginnen Sie mit dem „Fingerzeigen“ (narrative Kontrolle). Diese Art imperialistischen Verhaltens, wie es Washington DC und sein unterwürfiger „kollektiver Westen/NATO“ zeigen, begann nicht erst nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg.
Sie setzen die Machttechnik des „Teile und Herrsche“ ein.
Wer Spaltung sät, erntet Gewinne. So lautet die "divisen" den diese Atlantiker/Globalisten ernten.
Den „Reitern“ (Strategen) die säen, ist es egal, was hinter ihnen zurückbleibt.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jason8434 Very interesting comment.
Remember that throughout history, "wars/crises" have always been one of the biggest influencers in human bahaviour, and therefore a perfect "divider": War creates long-term effects, in the minds of a majority of human beings.
For the ruling classes, in the sinecure comfort behind their high walls, there is often no incentive to stop cirises and wars, apart from the "good souls" in every system (incl governments), who often cannot stop the bad people in their own systems.
"The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: WRONG.
It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid the divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use the technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
The Big Lie is the power of the divide and rule/conquer technique, and even the Nazis hid their "Big Lie"-conspiracy theory, behind an even bigger lie: how they intended to play this game until they got into power after their failed coup d'etat.
The "Big Lie" is not a myth but a misrepresentation of the truth.
It is the power of "divide and rule/conquer" which lurks behind every strategy they follow, in order to gain.
No human being has ever come up with a means to overcome this age-old technique of ruling over billions of people, because it is predicated on human nature itself, which is enduring.
No power player wants to become associated with authoritarian, or "colonial" tactics and strategies, or Nazis, so they cannot use it as a political means to attack rivals: it will immediately result in blowback.
The "Big Lie" conspiracy masked the divide and rule technique.
No power player can ever accuse any other power player of using it, since it will immediately backfire: the accusation of using the technique themselves, which in most cases of intent of gain will even apply***. The disguise usually comes in the form of scapegoating or another form of appeal to the emotion of listeners, or addressing and fortifying their already existing biases.
"Scapegoating" = an appeal to lower emotions of potential supporters.
In our divided societies, appealing to these biases might always be that tiny little "weight" that tilts the scale in very tightly run political elections.
Most power players read books on strategy, with the intention of using these strategies for personal gain, not because they wish to benefit you (the individual). There is always the urge to defend own favored systems, when one reads perceived "attacks" on these favored systems or own heroes, and the beloved own "-isms", which also reveal standard procedures, meaning the "attacker" soon falls into predetermined pathways to deflect and obfuscate from the core theory...
Great Britain did not "win" from the "divide and rule/conquer" system they had set up in Europe, which was a matter of long-term standing policy (historical analysis based on the observation of events), which resulted in London making the strongest continental power their "default rival/enemy" system.
Britons (average citizens) lost BIG TIME.
If you wish to truly understand the "how" and "why", then go to the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under this video. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
No, these essays are not a "conspiracy theory."
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
Most of what we are fed by our systems, as "rote leaning" details, are "99% ancillary details": not saying these are untrue or wrong, but simply that they are not as important on the ranking or "tiers" of events as geopolitics and grand strategy.
For these geostrategists, divide and rule/conquer is their main strategy, regardless of what you as an individual believe.
Footnotes:
***the strategy of "divide and rule/conquer" only applies in competitive "intent of gain" systems, not benevolent forms of reciprocal human interaction which are 100% fair...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Today we should be careful in criticizing past political decisions though, based on hindsight. Today, we can turn to page 434 of our history books, and go "well, we shoulda done that", or "we shouldn't have done that".
Past leaders didn't have that option of course :-)
Bear in mind that London used the rivalries of the continental powers, because its means were limited by reality (financial, industrial limitations). Since GB was an island, with a global empire to protect, obviously the Royal Navy was going to get the lion's share of resources.
The protection of "Empire" (British land forces = army came second) was achieved indirectly, by "balancing out" the continental powers against each other.
[See new comment below, on how that was implemented]
Furthermore, the focus on Hitler/Fascism is what IMO is a crude misuse of hindsight. The British Empire had other worries, and only today's hindsight makes it possible to focus on Germany/Fascist powers, and a certain "we shoulda done that"-assertion.
At the time, and correctly so, communism was seen as just as big a threat to the colonial powers, and colonialism in general.
But at the time, say until early-1938, Germany was not considered a danger by most British leaders. In fact it was simply considered a "tool" to out-balance other continental powers, and an equally rapidly industrialising/re-arming SU.
Communism was aimed at the the colonial power's impoverished masses, and an opposite pole to aggressive communist expansion was felt appropriate.
For further reading, I suggest googling:
- the Communist Manifest (the intent was voiced to destroy the west)
- the Comintern (a union of international communists)
- Soviet re-armament in the Five Year Plans 1928 and 1933 (note, long before Hitler).
- soviet Deep Battle/Operations (the SU version of "Blitzkrieg")
- strategic bombers/paratroopers (both offensive weapons systems, not defensive)
- Communist takeover of Mongolia
- The Soviet invasion of China 1934 (Xinjiang)
- The Great Leap/Mao (communist subversive warfare in action, with the display of the "modus operandi" of a possible future for western empires)
- Stalin's "Big Fleet Program", starting 1935 for a Blue Water Navy according to Mahan.
By the mid-30s, the SU was the world's most powerful military.
Stalin had around a million soldiers, and around 20,000 tanks and 15,000 frontline aircraft. More than the rest of Europe combined.
Today, we know what GB's leaders could only have assessed and worried about back throughout the 1930s...
[See:foreignaffairs(dot)com/articles/china/1950-10-01/china-stalins-grand-strategy]
Stalin intended for his particular brand of communism (Stalinism) to rise, and take over one slow step at a time. His expansion, could only come at the expense of western influence.
As an Empire with millions of poor and unsatisfied subjects, to whom communism might seem very appealing, London obviously felt that allowing Germany to rearm as a potential future ally in case Stalin tried something funny, might be forthcoming.
2
-
During the 1930s both started increasing their "power".
London of course "just playing balancing games" couldn't stop the SU, and wouldn't stop Berlin.
It used Poland as a pivot.
Imagine a seesaw. If one little kiddie on the one side starts eating "popcorn and chips" all day (SU), he's gonna grow biiiiig and faaaat and powerrrrful. So, to "balance" that out, London had to turn a blind eye to the other kiddie, on the other side "secretly" gobbling up some popcorn and chips too.
Because if London didn't allow Germany to equally grow "big and fat", London might one day be faced with a "big and powerrrrrfulll" Moscow bullying its way into Persia (like it did in Mongolia), or invade Afghanistan (as it did to China in 1934), and apart from the "totally demoralized" scrawny kid France, would have nobody to ally with protect them.
Embolden Japan? Worked so well to "take care of Russia" in 1904/05. Nah. The "new best fwiend" Washington DC wouldn't like that...
So few choices...
Poor "Empire".
I guess they would just have to allow German re-armament, and turn a blind eye to gobbling up Austria and the Sudetenland.
In the public eye, put up the "indignity" at Nazi expansion, and re-armament.
In the background, behind closed doors. Just playing "balancing games", as per norm for the past 100 years or so...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
London went to war on the continent multiple times, by own admission, to "balance powers" on the continent...
London's standpoint, by own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell = the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
And so the London lords played their "balancing games".
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
How absolutely funny...
They gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire.
Good riddance.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They "hopped on the scale" and they "hopped" their way into extinction...
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, 100% on track.
It is also intended for "future Asia."
Historically in East Asia, India and China were the biggest losers as outsiders came with the divide-and-rule technique of power (Era of Western Imperialism).
If one understands what happened to China during their "Century of Humiliation," means that one then already has the template to understand what is happening today. One can use the historical "template" and apply it in the same manner.
What happened to China during that era, is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today. Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the little minions benefiting from the outside POWER of imperialism to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) crises into "eternal problems," sit by and do nothing as problems foment into violence, revolutions, and wars, or carry out other forms of privatized interference (corporatism) under government protection, or without. Whatever works, details really REALLY DON'T MATTER. Once "fomented troubles" rise out of hand, claim to "just want peace." Then use the little minions as favourites (favouritism = a technique within the "divide and rule" strategy of power) to destabilize an entire region, steer them against other weaker entities, and/or employ them as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regions as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc.
Whatever works for the desired region to be divided/conquered or where CONTROL and domination is required for the economic systems of gain.
There is no way that current day Chinese leaders will not have learnt their very own historical lesson, and allow their very own history to repeat/rhyme, and allow such outside meddling in the own systems to gain traction, AGAIN for a second time.
Every nation or state has its own "Never again!"
European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonial ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon. These citizens, usually around 50% of entire populations, suffer directly ("heating or eating"), or indirectly (soaring inflation), these are all "effects," not to be confused with "causes" (see concept of retro causality, one of the most easily misused ways to skew a timeline of events). Some eventually even end up in the muddy trenches.
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their (temporary) GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
With re. to how tools are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also, that a "plan" and the strategy to effect the plan, are two different things.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as the USA implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combatted by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today, and there is MORE than sufficient evidence for this. Outsiders intent on playing the game, use the revolutionary spirit, in order to hop onto useful dissent, strengthen it, and insert levers which they can pry open to gain own advantages. Beijing is certainly 100% aware of this, so everything you are witnessing today is a political EFFECT, not a political "cause" as some leaders wish to mislead us towards.
Everything you are being told about Berlin, in stages after 1894, 1904, 1907, and 1912, with gathering momentum, were EFFECTS, not CAUSES. That was, based on observation, outside powers with the intention to "divide and rule" Europe, by encroaching/encircling the major continental power, which has never changed throughout recent modern history. The ONLY factor which changed over the last few centuries, was the "major continental power" which had to be CONTROLLED by the outside power who wanted a competitive advantage. The historical parallel, is the "Chinese Century of Shame"-historicity, and is well-known at least to the 1.4 billion inhabitants of China today. Certainly, they also do not wish to become "carved up" and ruled over by outsiders again, for a second time. The template therefore predicts a similar outcome, that of the more encroachment/encirclement, the more likeliness of the "breakout attempt" in some possible future.
Obvious solution for a more stable world, stop the encroachment/encirclement.
Both historically (post-1900) as well as our recent history (post-2000) there seems little incentive for those with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to do so, but rather the repeated attempts to search for tools to do such encroachment/encirclement FOR the outside power/s intent on gain.
Empires do not become dominant because they hand out candy and bouquets of flowers, as most realists are fully aware of, therefore the wise advice to always keep a just/wise "balance of powers. If not, fail.
Power flows to where the attention goes first, in geopolitics, in the form of political policies.
These can be studied by looking at the events themselves, not what another human being tells you (incl. this essay, which doesn't tell you anything, but implores you to start focusing on the well-known events themselves, from which one can then infer the underlying hidden policies, strategies, or objectives).
If you live in East Asia, beware of the "dividers".
The hawks will come looking for "buck catchers" and the doves will disguise it as the "helping friends"-narrative = i.e. the template of modern western imperialism. Hawks and doves working in close unison, although stated as being opposite poles.
They WILL come to you, same way as they came to the Ukraine, following the 1990s.
China has "understood".
India thinks it can "play the game" like France once did in Europe (becoming a "buck catcher" for the British Empire and USA), post-1900.
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Furthermore, British officials worked to emphasise the differences in the Indian army, in an attempt to prevent a unification of Indians
against British rule along the lines of race, nationality, religion, or caste (p49)...British officials introduced laws over the following years to
keep the army divided along caste and religious lines...Firstly, they increased the number of European troops that made up the army,
which decreased the level of Indian unity found in the older Indian army (p50) ... As Lord Ellenborough, a British politician who served as
Governor-General of British India from 1842-1844 stated: 'The fewer elements of combination there are in the native army the better,
and therefore the more nationalities and castes and religions, the more secure we shall be.'(p 53) ... As another British official, Lord
Elphinstone, wrote: 'Divide et Impera was the old Roman motto, and it should be ours'(p 54)." Stewart, N. (1951). Divide and Rule:
British Policy in Indian History. Science & Society, 15(1), (pp.49-57)
"In their reorganization of the army after the rebellion had been suppressed, British officials implemented the tactic of divide and rule in an attempt to prevent any future mutinies" Morrock, R. (1973). Heritage of Strife: The Effects of Colonialist "Divide and Rule" Strategy
upon the Colonized Peoples. Science & Society, 37(2), (pp.129-151)
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here is what you sopport:
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They hatefully chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
2
-
"Right or wrong", or "Was it a war crime", or "Who started", is all irrelevant.
Our elites have divided us "commoners" and "grunts", and are agitating behind closed doors, while we do the squabbling...
Because there's always a big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Google: britannica & balance-of-power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to play "balancing games" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...you loose your empire to the new kids in town...
From the unmistakable "Nr.1" in 1900, down to "merely on par" with Washington DC after WW1, down to "third fiddle" during the Cold War. All in less than a single lifetime...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. The world was divided in "East" and "West".
And down went the British Empire too...
People, don't waste your time arguing with immoral people.
Simply tell them the outcome of own actions.
2
-
When reading the ultimatum, the inexperienced "Limbic brain thinker" is mesmerizingly drawn to "choice (a)"...
I wonder why?
" ... His Majesty’s Government have instructed me to demand that the French Fleet now at Mers el Kebir and Oran shall act in accordance with one of the following alternatives; (a) Sail with us and continue the fight until victory against the Germans, (b) Sail with reduced crews under our control to a British port. The reduced crews would be repatriated at the earliest moment. If either of these courses is adopted by you we will restore your ships to France at the conclusion of the war or pay full compensation if they are damaged meanwhile. (c) Alternatively if you feel bound to stipulate that your ships should not be used against the Germans unless they break the Armistice, then sail them with us with reduced crews to some French port in the West Indies — Martinique for instance — where they can be demilitarised to OUR satisfaction, or perhaps be entrusted to the United States and remain safe until the end of the war, the crews being repatriated. If you refuse these fair offers (edit: LOL, a false premise), I must with profound regret, require you to sink your ships within 6 hours ..."
Note here: All alternatives would have resulted in the removal of these French naval vessels, meaning that there would be no defense against seaborne elements of a potential future attack, to protect French citizens in Tunesia and Algeria.
London: "Looky here. I have a scrap of paper that says WE have the same enemy, but YOU are going to do most of the dying, and our common best fwiends in Washington DC are totally fine with that."
SIR Bolivar: "How honorable of us (ingroup conclusion."
How the mind of a deceiver works:
The deception offered by option (a), sticks out like a sore thumb
If chosen, it would mean that France broke the armistice conditions shortly after signing it, meaning that Italy would no longer be bound by these Armistice conditions. Not only Italy of course, but nothing then stopped Germany from occupying ALL of France as a result, leading to more FRENCH bloodshed and destruction of FRENCH property. If the French stuck to the armistice, on the other hand, it would leave roughly 80% of the French navy as deterence in the Med (40% in Oran/40% in Toulon/status quo). If they chose option (a), it would leave only 40% of the French Navy in Toulon, and possibly none, should Germany decide to occupy all of France because it broke the armistice. NO French ships to deter an attack to French North African territory, because they would have nowhere to operate from should Germany occupy all of France, and Italy if struck at Tunesia/Algeria.
Goading Italy into sending her massive Libyan armies westwards to fight France, rather than eastwards to fight GB, towards the Suez Canal, or if both were tried by Italy, then seriously weakening the forces available for attacking Egypt.
Choosing option (a) would have risked that the entire French Navy had no legal basis to operate under (no French based state), becoming fugives, maybe being forced to hope for breakaway French colony as harbor, and if none of the above then to join Great Britain like the Dutch Navy before, because the Empire HAD naval bases, just what London wanted: the French fleet under British CONTROL, to protect the British Empire "for free."
THE "DIVISION" PER "RULING" OF THE FRENCH EMPIRE
Note here that the Dutch government/navy can NOT serve as an example of "honorable solution" for France a few weeks later, since after May 1940, the Netherlands had nothing more to lose in Europe. All its unoccupied territory was far outside of the reach of the Axis powers (Indo-Pacific),an therefore a typical "apples/oranges"-comparrison.
If France chose the same "honorable government-in-exile" solution as Den Hague, as one can be easily misguided into thinking, France would lose even more: potentially French North Africa, to the "hyena Italy" and the total occupation of all her citizens by Germany. Meanwhile, for all of that, there was no guarantee that London might not simply make a deal with Berlin herself a few weeks later, in order to save its Empire from collapse, because a weak London offered the perfect opportunity for an expanded Axis Berlin-Moscow.
Note here, it was all about the British Empire, while saying "we".
Not a single word is wasted about any contigencies for the protection of French territory or citizens in North Africa, in the event of an attack by (most likely) Italy, being in the most advantageous location to make use of this stage of "French weakness" to invade Tunesia and Algeria (main attack/land warfare), and use the wide-open ports if the French navy bowed down to British demands, as re-supply and landing points for stores and equipment. The entire purpose of a navy is defense against such forms of enemy naval operations in support of land warfare. The ultimatum was a cleverly disguised intention to trade the French Navy in for a "promise" of protecting these with the Royal navy, or a combination of ships under British control.
London: YOU shall be given the choice between deception (a) and dishonor (aka the "false dichtomy").
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: YOU shall break your armistice agreement, by choosing either deception or dishonor, and continue the Battle of France because it is advantageous to US.
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: YOU shall continue the Battle of France, with NO visible potential for success, because neither WE or the USA is lifting as much as a finger to help (effective support). YOU shall "extend Germany" for as long as possible, to the LAST FRENCH SOLDIER, and goad Italy into attacking Tunesia/Algeria which is YOUR territory, away from Egypt, which is OUR territory.
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: Your citizens in France, and your cities and towns, shall goad Germany into continuing their attack, because you broke the armistice with them ...ahem "voluntarily" (he, he,he) so it's ALL YOUR OWN FAULT if the Germans choose to occupy all of France, just like we successfully implemented in Norway in April ("drawing" the bull, off the matador).
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: YOU shall bow down to a mere captain, who doesn't even have the slightest POWER OF NEGOTIATION, who will decide the future of your citizens and your navy.
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: YOU shall sacrifice French cities and towns and French blood, to save OURS, because you were stupid enough to make a treaty with us. Guess what? WE are an island, which we shall largely retreat to, and YOU have a border with our enemy (imbalance in power).
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: YOU shall bleed MORE so that WE shall bleed less, just like Poland before.
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: And the coolest, COOLEST thing all, YOU are not going to complan about all your BLEEDING, because it was avoluntary decision. We had absolutely nothing to do with YOUR choices.
France: Yeah, right...
London: We have the POWER of the superior mind, because it doesn't matter what WE do, the overwhelming majority of our citizens, in blind trust and incapable of grasping how we tick (strategy), will cheer us along because of our words, and they will do so into their own destruction.
Paris: Yeah, I guess I'm fine with that.
London: Let me rephrase those famous words for you... YOU shall fight on (faraway) beaches, FOR the interests of the British Empire, without even being aware that you are fighting for the British Empire. YOU shall fight in the hills in Tunesia or Algeria, FOR the interests of the British Empire, without even being aware that you are fighting for the British Empire. WE will ensure that the Battle of Britain will start with "a depleted Luftwaffe", and far less firepower, because most of the planes were bombing somewhere else.
(Sounds of cheering crowds in the background)
Paris: I said, nah thanks...
On the 3rd of July 1940, France finally found out what it had signed up for as mere "entente"-best fwiend in 1904, as "buck catcher" (Prof. John Mearsheimer) for the British Empire. It went out the "buck catching"-way, same as Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway before, and the same way the Ukraine is being "extended today", and will most likely go out the same "buck catching"-way.
Obviously, viewed through the lens of systems/strategy (specifically grand strategy), if the "favored nation" os the "buck catcher", it can also be used to goad a rival of the "buck passer" (the greater power in the relationship). The "buck passer/s" can then steer, manage, or moderate the resulting crisis or war.
Even Churchill was not convinced that every London lord would be fine with such a mockery of the term "friendship", and prepared two speeches. One defiant, one conciliatory. But he was wrong, and after the bloodbath there was no need to roll out the "conciliation".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A very common excuse for Versailles is usually the "just as bad as Brest-Litovsk"-narrative, usually accompanied by long lists of how much poor Imperialist Russia "lost" in 1917 (percentage of territory, or population, or other similar criteria). Of course, the intention of such rhetoric is to focus the attention of the observer onto what some "poor empire" lost, rather than to focus on what others gained (the first tentative steps towards independence for millions of non-Russians).
So we are (historically) sopposed to feel sorry for what some "poor" power mongers in the capital city of Moscow lost, rather than rejoice in the new-found independence others gained?
Let's not be fooled by our own biases.
Either as a direct or indirect result of WW1 (which had already caused so much suffering and lost lives from 1914 to 1917) weakening the powers involved, millions of Ukrainians, Finns, Lithuanians, Estonians, and Latvians and others in the Caucasus region gained their first real opportunity to break free from the historical grip St Petersburg/Moscow held over them. This Russian weakness in 1917/18 offered a suitable point in time during which these nations and their new leaders could use the weakness of the historical hegemon, in order to break free and achieve more control over own matters. The Central Power's weakness at the time (after the failed spring offensive in March 1918, and subsequent willingness by Berlin to negotiate a peace settlement in the west, and ongoing rapid collapse of Austria-Hungary) also offered a suitable point in time during which Allied leaders could have politically engineered a favorable outcome for the new Eastern European "little nations" in their quest for a new independent future.
A similar historical analogy would be the late-1980s, the collapse of the SU, and the subsequent way in which Moscow's weakness was used to gain independence for "little nations" for the second time in less than a hundred years.
Such a process of breaking free from the constraints of a hegemon can either be foiled, or supported by outside powers.
During WW1, by rescinding Brest-Litovsk as a pre-requisite for peace talks (Armistice conditions) for their own war in the west, and since "Russia" as a "power" had simply passed the point of being a useful tool for London/Paris/Washington DC to bind as many enemy soldiers as possible, the Western Allies now also nipped the ongoing process of independence in Central Europe "in the bud". Note that throughout 1917, there were intense efforts by the Allies to keep Russia "in the fight". Obviously a two-front war for the Central Powers seriously weakened them, limiting their ability to effect an outcome.
The Armistice conditions of November 1918 also (de facto) forced the withdrawal of the last few German garisons from the Ukraine, thereby enabling all that followed: the Red invasion, and the expansion of the Civil War to include the regions previously pacified by Brest-Litovsk. Millions of people subsequently losing their lives, health, and property as the commies swarmed into the Ukraine.
Up to that point in time (Nov 1918), the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk had acted as a de jure barrier to ward off the new Moscow power mongers (communists), intent on re-establishing the borders of the previous Imperial Russia for themselves and as a base for their intended "conquest of the world" (evidence: see the Communist International/Comintern in 1919, where the intention was voiced to destroy world order, including the use of violence). A little bit of hindsight there, for the "hindsight"-fans...
That they would use "rivers of blood" to achieve this "endsieg", was already clear at this time (see Russian Civil War, which had raged in other parts of ex-Imperial Russia since 1917).
Had Brest-Litovsk remained intact, the independence of the Ukraine and Caucasus Republics could have been successfully effected in 1918 already, and the Ukraine saved as a further bullwark against communism. A massive part of communism's later power during the Cold War (population, raw materials, oil, and other tools of "power") could have been denied to them, as a "rug pulled out underneath their feet".
Conclusion: By forcing the withdrawal of German soldiers, and rescinding Brest-Litovsk, there was neither a de jure nor a de facto barrier which held the commies back.
And today? Moscow's intention on re-establishing the borders of the previous times, at least in part (so-called "sphere of influence"-grabbing): Strange how today nobody talks about "How much poor Russia lost in the 1990s", thereby creating faux sympathy for the current invasion, and millions losing their lives, health, and property just like 1919...
The "narrative" has simply been suitably shifted or "tweaked" to ensure that "history" is being written "correctly" for the chanting masses...lol
"Written correctly" of course is nothing else but to provide the apologia for own actions and inactions, because "at any moment in time, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing at all" (Theodore Roosevelt).
The "winners" certainly excelled at "doing nothing" re. Central and Eastern Europe, even though keeping Brest-Litovsk intact in parts, would not have made a wise peace in the west improbable in any way.
A very common excuse for Versailles being "just as bad as Brest-Litovsk", is simply yet another attempt at finger-pointing aka "deflection"(see Bible for moral guidelines re. the concept of "deflection"), in order to cover up own weak historical leadership and their own historical greed to grab spheres of influence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
The long shaddow of Western Imperialism, returns.
The "empires" strike again.
All of this was kickstarted with Western Imperialism, in 1904/05.
The people of Morocco (at the time, 1905) were carved up as a "divide and conquer"-technique and have since 1911 grown up under completely different empires, with different education, loyalties, leaderships, and hegemons.
One cannot "reverse" such a history, by ignoring the fact that the people today are not the same coherent mass as before 1905, when all were a part of the same kingdom.
Today, it is "divide and rule" yet again, as the USA, dragging along its junior partner Israel, are trying to set up Morocco against Algeria, as "buck catcher" to destabilize the entire MENA region.
Algeria is pro-China.
Pure coincidence, I'm sure 😮
Morocco, which received the "gift" of territory, per "ruling", is pro-USA. Its fabulously corrupted rich king, a parallel of the obscenely wealthy Arab sheiks of the post-1960s, also "favorites" of the American Century, and equally, also tools in a "divide and rule"-setup of the MENA region...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ofrapeters3952 No, I've never lived on a Kibbutz, but I did consider the offer once while a naive 17-year old. There were pamphlets in our school, and the offer was basically that we paid for our transport to Israel, and once there it would be basically "work on the Kibbutz in exchange for all-paid cultural experience, incl. organized excursions, etc. all paid for by the Kibbutz". Something like that.
Several of my school friends and I were quite excited about the opportunity, until I asked a Jewish pupil why he was not going. He said his father would never allow him to go, and then explained the "function" of the frontier Kibbutzim, using exactly the same "farms/forts/US strategy if expansion during the Indian Wars"-analogy as I wrote in the above essay.
The function of these frontierland Kibbutzim, were as tools of expansion, and an accepted strategy of expansion. If these frontierland "farms/forts" (aka Kibbutz) were ever attacked, Israel would be "just shooting back," same as US imperialist expansion did for more than 200 years in North America...
So here is the critical question.
If this was already freely available "insider information", that attacks on "frontierland" Kibbutzim would be used as propaganda means ever since British Empire days (before 1948), and way back in 1984 when I personally found out, then why is nobody discussing this Israeli strategy of expansion today?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Are you a citizen of the world, and wish to contribute a small share to end the grip the global elites have on the narrative of history?
Are you American, or European? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from the multitude of military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any platform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Why do we know this? Because good people have been voting, and posting, and debating, and using their freedom of speech, and protesting for hundreds of years, but the grip the elites have on the plebs has NEVER changed.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting all international big brands.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small local companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever and whenever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get side-lined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone," or "but, but, but...your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be perfect...
Methodology: JDI and make it a long term lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk trend, because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate interests. Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small local companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Do you wish to fight meddling globalist empires?
If those who have the money use their competitive advantages to spread lies and misdirection via the MSM, we must use our numbers to spread the truth of what happened.
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influential GLOBAL ELITES only REALLY start "caring" (sic.) when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The entire USA/collective West is NATO, and they were "poking the bear" as collective effort. Now all these weak minds are scurrying around, trying to find somebody more guilty than themselves. An age-old blame game.
N ew
A tlanticist
T erritorial
O peration
The stick poking the bear...or as John Mearsheimer famously predicted, the "buck passers" setting up millions of people in the "favoured country" to "catch the buck" if the effort to encroach/encircle another state failed, so others bleed for the own expansive aims.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans.
- Caucasus region/Black Sea (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those being encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon.
This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their current subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
------------------------------------
The bigger picture can be distorted, and the strategy of divide-and-rule hidden behind narratives of benevolence...
For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented (de facto reality). For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
What lessons can we learn from the current mess in the Ukraine?
Lesson 1:
Don't become the "next Ukraine".
Lesson 2:
Don't forget "Lesson 1".
2
-
2
-
"Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment.[1] The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking,[2] and accordingly, a critical thinker is one who practices the skills of critical thinking or has been schooled in its disciplines.[3] Richard W. Paul has suggested that the mind of a critical thinker engages both the intellectual abilities and personal traits necessary for critical thinking.[4] Critical thinking presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism[5][6] and sociocentrism." (Wiki)
"In that context (not a ref. to the above but a previous chapter in the book), how America "manages" Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 percent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about 60 percent of the world's GNP and about threefourths of the world's known energy resources. Eurasia is also the location of most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. After the United States, the next six largest economies and the next six biggest spenders on military weaponry are located in Eurasia. All but one of the world's overt nuclear powers and all but one of the covert ones are located in Eurasia. The world's two most populous aspirants to regional hegemony and global influence are Eurasian. All of the potential political and/or economic challengers to American primacy are Eurasian. Cumulatively, Eurasia's power vastly overshadows America's. Fortunately for America, Eurasia is too big to be politically one..." THE GRAND CHESSBOARD American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski
Critical question.
If that is the realisation, then what is the strategy to avoid that?
Ahem..."manages"...
Last time I checked, "thoughts and prayers" are neither a strategy, nor a management style.
What Brzezinski fails to elaborate on in his book, is that his "periphery" of states stretching from South East Asia, via the Indian subcontinent, through Africa and from there to South America, just like Great Britain and the U.S.A. was once the "periphery" of Europe...
2
-
The destruction of German cities and, collective punishment of entire populations(with the subsequent retrospective justification from a 1945 POV) was one of the most ridiculous and counter productive exercises in warfare ever. To illustrate why I say this, consider this objective chain of events.
Episode 1: The Area Bombing Directive, and OFFICIAL British government POLICY
According to the Area Bombing Directives of February 1942 "...entire cities were to be targeted..." (carpet bombing of city centers, hidden behind euphemisms like "de-housing" or "workforce"). For the next three years, this would be the policy followed by Bomber Command, and a majority (not all) raids were carried out according to this principle.
How effective was this to reduce the pressures of Allied soldiers fighting on the front lines? How effective was this to aid the ground forces, the ONLY forces which have the ability to end wars?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive
Episode 2 Around two years later.
One of the most feared German weapons of WW2 was the Tiger tank, built at the Henschell plant in Kassel. Kassel was "blasted as a whole" in October 1943. The entire city center was destroyed and about 10,000 "enemy" women and kids were burned to a cinder. According to the Area Bombing advocates, it was "a huge success".
Of course, according to the Area Bombing policy, the well-known heavy industrial plant, Henschell wasn't the target of this raid. An indirect result of the raid was that Tiger production rose from 1943 (650 built) to 1944 (around 1000 Tiger I and II).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Kassel_in_World_War_II
Episode 3 Normandy
The 13th June 1944 was the blackest day in the history of the British 7th Armored Division. In the space of 15 minutes, Michael Wittman, commander of a Tiger tank, went on a rampage, and killed 230 young British soldiers, and 29 AFV's (tanks and APCs).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann
Episode 4 Today
Here's the million dollar question.
Would Wittman have been able to to the same on 13th June 1944, had his Tiger tank been destroyed in the October 1943 attack on Kassel? Would he have been able to single-handedly kill 230 young men, if he had been sitting on a bicycle, armed with an old rifle ? (because the heavy industry producing modern tanks had been destroyed in 1943/44)
Nor were all those other young Allied soldiers, who were blown to bits on the battlefields by weapons which could have been destroyed in the factories if the right decisions had been made in 1942. Despite bombing the sh*t out of city centers (or,..maybe BECAUSE of bombing city centers?), German armament production rose dramatically until the final quarter of 1944.
My personal conclusion?
Utter folly to gloat over the deaths over hundreds of thousands, and there are still people who revere men like Portal and Harris as "far sighted". Their decisions indirectly led to the needless deaths of scores of OWN soldiers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, there is only "history".
As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives".
One perspective should not rank higher than another.
Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable".
The reality?
As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
2
-
Just imagine: A few signatures under a timely comprehensive European security agreement at the turn of the previous century (around 1900) would have avoided WW1 (and by association also WW2).
A few signatures under a timely comprehensive European security agreement which also incl. Russia, at the turn of this century (around the year 2000) would have avoided the current war in the Ukraine (and by association all which will follow in the future).
“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”
— Henry Kissinger
The beauty of "history", is that the "control freaks" of history tell you exactly what they aim to do.
Kissinger's quote is of course not restricted to modern times only, when he stated it.
It is one of those age-old truisms, most well-known to the history fan as the "siege" of towns and fortresses throughout ancient history, or as the "naval blockade" (military strategy) as technology improved, or in modern times the "political/economic sanctions" (politics). All with a host of variations as our world became more and more complex.
The aim is to coerce and to extort.
To blackmail and to armwrestle an advantage from the elevated position of the "higher ground" onto others, with or without negotiations, or needing to make concessions, or simply impose "jackboot"-style.
But in nature and physics, every "force" results in an equal and opposite reaction force (Newton/Third Law).
Wiki "In international relations, the security dilemma (also referred to as the spiral model) is when the increase in one state's security (such as increasing its military strength) leads other states to fear for their own security (because they do not know if the security-increasing state intends to use its growing military for offensive purposes).[1] Consequently, security-increasing measures can lead to tensions, escalation or conflict with one or more other parties, producing an outcome which no party truly desires; a political instance of the prisoner's dilemma.[2][1][3][4][5]
The security dilemma is particularly intense in situations when (1) it is hard to distinguish offensive weapons from defensive weapons, and (2) offense has the advantage in any conflict over defense.[1] Military technology and geography strongly affect the offense-defense balance.[1] The term was first coined by the German scholar John H. Herz in a 1950 study.[6] At the same time British historian Herbert Butterfield described the same situation in his History and Human Relations, but referred to it as the "absolute predicament and irreducible dilemma".[7] The security dilemma is a key concept in international relations theory, in particular among realist scholars to explain how security-seeking states can end up in conflict.[5]"
(end of quote)
Of course, something being the topic of a historical analysis, or termed/defined at a later date, does not mean it did not exist at a previous stage in history.
It existed as a concept, often under different names, or even in the form of mythology if you lived in ancient Persia or Greece, and it existed if you lived in GB at the turn of the previous century, looking at "Wilhelm building ships".
Such "tit-for-tat"-logic has always existed in the dog-eat-dog world of "empires", alliances and states. It became prevalent only after the age of print, widespread democracy and the resulting diluted power shared amongst more and more entities. All of which would need to convince more and more people, becoming the norm (say, for the sake of argument) during the 19th Century.
Just imagine: A few signatures under a timely comprehensive European security agreement at the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") would have avoided WW1 (and by association also WW2).
A few signatures under a timely comprehensive European security agreement which also incl. Russia, at the turn of this century ("around the year 2000") would have avoided the current war in the Ukraine (and by association all which will follow in the future).
Aww well...too late for all that now.
In both cases, the "few signatures" would have avoided endless hardships.
Who benefited, if the world of "no signatures" prevailed?
The idiomatic expression about frantically rushing about trying to "close the gate after the horse bolted" was literally invented for European politics.
Basically everything they do is "too little too late".
2
-
2
-
For hundreds of years the London/British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations, especially "little nations". Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed from dark archives: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images").
The photographs look a lot like Coventry, don't they?
Kagoshima, Canton, Sebastopol (Krim War), and and dozens of others. Such fun to have own leaders coining the term "Copenhagenization" to mock the children they burnt alive while cheering on the historical heroes committing such acts. Victims? Who cares about victims? Right?
From wiki: "Oh, that example of Copenhagen has worked wonders in the world!... I (would) like to see the name of that city become a verb... 'cities will be copenhagenized' is an excellent phrase." William Cobbet
Excellent indeed.
His wish would one day become true, long after he was dead and gone, but surely not according to his dreams...
So around the world they went, turning towns and cities and entire kingdoms into "mere verbs".
Such great fun, bomb(ard)ing everybody else, but not getting bomb(ard)ed oneself.
Terror bombing countless towns and villages as the weapons improved, but the practice remained: creating uncounted victims because nobody cared enough to even count. Later, in Mesopotamia, and Aden, the Sudan, and then euphemistically terming this "Air Policing". Makes you think that terror bombing people unable to defend themselves against superior technology, is really just your friendly neighborhood Bobby keeping the peace, lol...
When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exciting it was to "dodge bullets". The locals defending their own? Such great fun, mowing down weaker nations who had only spears and old fashioned muskets, with cannons and machine guns. Pfffft. Who gives a...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps ("penal colonies" for cheap labor), and then burning evidence of crimes right through into the 1960s (google Operation Legacy).
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down and V-2s rained down on their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
Not so great having own cities and streets turned into mere verbs, right?
William Cabbot, and other British leaders' heartfelt desire to turn cities into mere verbs finally came true.
Londonization, Liverpoolization, Southamptonization, Hullization, Doverization...Coventrization.
Then, all of a sudden, everybody was soooooooo tired of all that "Empire"-stuff.
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they would never forget.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
IDF Intelligence Service report from June 1948 lists 11 factors which precipitated the exodus, listing them in order of importance as:
a. Direct hostile Jewish operations against Arab settlements. (The Haganah was the army of the Yeshuv, or Jewish community in Palestine, and was the precursor of the Israeli Defense Force, or IDF.)
b. The effect of our hostile operations on nearby Arab settlements (especially the fall of large neighboring centers).
c. Operations of the Jewish dissidents (terrorist organisations like Irgun and the Stern Gang, also known as the Irgun Tzvai Leumi, Lehi, etc.).
d. Jewish whispering operations (psy-ops) aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.
e. Expulsion orders (by Haganah/IDF).
The Israeli Intelligence Service gives an explanation re. the main factors, concluding that “without doubt, hostile (edit: own) operations were the main cause of the movement of the population”.
According to the own analyses, it was a forced expulsion, or ethnic cleansing. Note that more than half of these actions took place before the Arab attack of 1948, so that the typical apologetic "it was war you know," is no excuse.
2
-
2
-
Those who have power constantly preach the "rules based society", but the rules they preach, are nothing like the "rules" they themselves follow as guidelines...
They themselves follow "rules" like the "48 Rules of Power/Robert Greene", which are not meant to overcome the divide and rule setup of any society, even democracies, but to make use of the divisions between systems, amplify these divisions if useful, or gloss over such divisions if beneficial for the own gain, in order to win personally or for the own favored system.
For those who follow such "rules", hypocrisy or lies are not an "oversight", or "a mistake", or "accidental", but a strategy of power (see footnote).
Hypocrites draw other hypocrites into their own circles of power: by being openly hypocritical, a hypocrite exposes himself/herself, and can therefore be approached by systems of gain. This is greatly aided by media, or the internet, incl. "free speech", since hypocrisy and lying is a "protected right". Creating entire entities of professional hypocrites and professional spinners, framers, and liars thereby establishing a hierarchy of hypocrites/deceivers, especially prevallent in systems of power and gain, like politics (incl., but not limited to "liberal democracies"), and all forms of structures with an intent of gain motivation (incl., but not limited to capitalist gain models). All of these attract a potential "<20% psychos" which are proven to exist in the top echelons of power in all "intent of gain systems".
Such systems also attract natural bullies, as per observable reality.
Hypocrites, narcissistic behaviour, bullying, and Machiavellianism might cause unease in the overwhelming number of good people in every society, but these good people are usually not the ones "gatekeeping" (also a bully tactic) the most influencial political/corporate job openings, which are not voted for by the populations of "Western-style"-democracies, or in corporations which then proceed to buy their own favorable laws (lobbying, influence) and buy corruptable politicians in the "legalized bribes"-systems they had previously lobbied for...
Being openly hypocritical and deceptive is a "rule" considered a virtue, in some circles of power.
Calling these people out in an effort of shaming is pointless, since they have no shame.
Footnotes/key words for further research:
* 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
* Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
* The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Butheadbros2 False equivallence.
Nazi Germany undertook the first aggressive action, by invading Poland.
As long as there is no North Korean attack on any other country, there is also no justification for a first strike.
Here is what you need to understand.
The country which attacks first, without due cause, is the aggressor.
It does not matter if the other country is unsympathetic, or tortures people in concentration camps, or has a totalitarian dictator.
What counts, is who "shoots" first.
Don't underestimate the gravity of a war in the region.
It could QUICKLY escalate.
Chinese interests are affected, and so are Russian (Vladivostok).
The potential of it turning into another shithole of violence, regurgitating unhealed wounds from WW2 (Koreas vs. Japan vs. China vs. Russia) is just too big.
Furthermore, the potential effect of bandwagoning is also there as other parties jump in to settle old and new scores (South China Seas crisis, Vietnam) if the war is not decided quickly, and drags on, as we have seen in the ME.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
2
-
2
-
2
-
As bad as the Japanese occupation was, it was not Japan which caused most of the suffering in Korea, but western Imperialism.
This western imperialism, was the "big picture" reality, which gave rise to everything which followed in its wake.
Korea was first "signed away" by western powers against the backdrop of the own colonial ambitions for Asia, just before the Russo-Japanese War of 1904. The Korean appeal to these western hegemons by declaring the own neutrality, and wishing to remain outside of these colonial wars, was first acknowledged by these western powers, but when Japan ignored this neutrality and used Korea as staging area to attack Russia, these same western nations who saw an advantage in opposing Russian expansion (mainly GB and the USA) did nothing to uphold Korean neutrality and the subsequent step by step Japanese subjection. Note that while a European country's "neutrality" was "worth escalating a continental European war into a world war for" a few years later (Belgium, 1914), Korea in 1904 was not...
The final episode of this Era of Imperialism for Korea came with WW2. Korea was simply divided up in two parts, by the "winners" of this war, under the auspices of "wanting the best for the people", but without simply asking the people or their representatives what they wanted for themselves. An entirely random border was taken, and yet another nation in the world split into two parts, as "loot" of the winning systems.
Wiki: "The division of Korea began with the defeat of Japan in World War II. During the war, the Allied leaders considered the question of Korea's future after Japan's surrender in the war. The leaders reached an understanding that Korea would be liberated from Japan but would be placed under an international trusteeship until the Koreans would be deemed ready for self-rule.[1] In the last days of the war, the U.S. proposed dividing the Korean peninsula into two occupation zones (a U.S. and Soviet one) with the 38th parallel as the dividing line. The Soviets accepted their proposal and agreed to divide Korea.[2]"
For the west, the new "South Korea" was simply a new jumping off point in order to safeguard their previous "loot" (colonial concessions/spheres of influence in Asia), or as staging areas for further potentially possible conquests in Asia, and to stand against the Soviet occupation of N. China (Manchuria).
The divide and rule/conquer strategy which effected Korea for the last 150 years, is an insidious tool of domination, control, and rule (direct or indirect).
It hides itself behind a plethora of "kind words" but it reveals itself when studying the actions, and actually looking at a map, and what was happening elsewhere, both in regional proximity, as well as thousands of miles away in the capital cities of the world hegemons.
"Divide and rule, weaken and conquer, love and enslave, these are three tenets of politics" ― Bangambiki Habyarimana
These "friends" came from outside, and "loved" and "enslaved" people all over the globe and set local groups up against each other, using a variety of means: favoratism, money, their own emotions (often the effects of the own histories)...
South Koreans might consider themselves lucky today, and blessed with "economic well-being" and "good friends" from the Collective West, but this current "luck" is again only an effect of its current geographical location on the map. South Korea is again simply useful in standing up to a (now united/strong) China, same as Japan was useful during the Cold War (contain communism in Asia).
Any temporary "friends" will be immediately dropped by the western hegemons the moment the big picture reality is no longer the case.
Sadly, a chosen own neutrality means nothing in the realist world, for as Prof. John Mearsheimer stated: the self-preservation instincts of the global hegemons comes first, and "little South Korea" is in a fracture zone between the tectonic plates created by empires.
In this reality, local Asian people are being set up anew, to surround the western hegemons' new rival, which is China.
Japan, South Korea, the Philippenes, etc. on the Pacific side, and others on the Asian side (India, talks of "independent Tibet", Thailand elections being meddled in by the NED, etc.) in a grand encirclement strategy as history repeats...
2
-
2
-
@VenomousSoup14 No.
If I'd have been in charge in 1990, I would have enforced a peace treaty between Israel and Palestine, by being tough on Israel and basically stating that if they don't accept East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital city (the core reason why the Camp David talks of the early-1990s failed) that the USA would cut all ties with Israel and leave the region.
Israel would then have to deal with the sh*t it causes itself...
Under such pressure, the Israeli's would have given in.
There would have been 2 states (Israel and Palestine), each with their own territory, with trade agreements, non-aggression treaties, etc.
The root cause of terrorism would have disappeared.
The rug would have been pulled from underneath radical Islamist recruitment...i.e. "hate".
Secondly, I would have been tough on Saudi Arabia to stop funding Wahhabism.
The single most radical ideology and a foundation of Jihadists, paid for by oil revenues and only recently curbed...
Next, I would have kicked out all the bloody lobbyist from the halls of power, and implemented a Green New Deal for alternative energy.
Oil, is the driving force of war, and if our dependency on oil could be cut, at least half of the world's constant wars will end...
Then, I would have been assassinated, and I would have received a monument :-)
But then again, I wasn't in charge in the 1990s....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lovestrong3582 Please do more than that.
Contribute your share, just like millions of powerless people here in Europe and the USA who want real change.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
2
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Growing up in Christian influenced societies we (as individuals) are taught to see the world as "good vs bad".
That is, however, not the way many of our leaders see the world. They look at maps, countries, regions as areas that need to be controlled or balanced out.
Right or wrong? Not really relevant...according to these leaders.
Read the policy which predetermined how London would act ("commissions" as well as "omissions") or react to political situations...
It says nothing about bad leaders.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
There was only one consideration.
To uphold a balance.
Wilhelm being a "Trump" of the 1890s had little to do with it. At most, it offered a convenient excuse for own politics, always filtered or prioritized by the Policy of Balance of Powers.
All Wilhelm II wanted was an alliance, friendship treaty, Entente, or likewise (say, a N/A Pact), to protect his people from a possible 2-front attack by France and Russia.
London refused.
After unification and industrialisation, Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war in any continental crisis or war, irrelevant of "who started it".
It was a policy, made in London, and strict adherence to it, which caused Europe to fail.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What is the duty of most the western press?
It is to create narratives.
The future of (quote) "evil Russia".
Upon zooming out, divide and rule always unfolds the same way.
And always functions the same way: set people up against each other, or use existing divisions by amplifying these, a chief means being favoratism of certain key strategically located regions (in Europe for example, in the past it was France and Great Britain).
When things invariably go wrong, blame the people so "divided" by own premeditated policies, or the leaders of these people.
Whether the desired regions are democracies or autocracies does not even matter: if democracies, just blame the people, and if autocracies blame the leaderships. Or both, also doesn't really matter either. Accuracy is not important, and the overlapping multi-layered divide and rule systems in each seperate system will take care of everything as eternal struggle for "the truth" is fought out in books, documentaries, debates, journals, political events, usually accompanied by incredible amounts of carefully and meticulously researched data.
What is revealed by careful undistorted observation though, is the direction the expansion takes place (see below comment about creating future "staging areas") and a few core methods.
"In May 2022, US journalist Casey Michel called for the "decolonization" of Russia. In his view, the dissolution of the former Soviet Union should be continued, to end the rule of Moscow over the republics of Russia.[28] Weeks later the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe held an event discussing "the need to 'decolonize' Russia" because of "Russia's barbaric war on Ukraine", as they put it, calling for a conversation about Russia's "interior empire" and noting "Moscow's dominion over many indigenous non-Russian nations".[Wiki]
Or search for "Prep aring for the Dis.solution of the Rus.sian Fede ration" on You Tube
Go back to how the USA "dissoluted" Native American tribal lands in the past...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars
...then simply scale this development up, and one can see "Russia" in its potential desired future for the strategists in the Western world. Advance on step at a time. One staging area to the next (see below essay).
Russia tomorrow.
The techniques are the same.
All that is needed is a few local "new nations/states" (ex-Russian Federation) to do the heavy lifting, to encroach on and encircle the next in line, which is the real goal: China.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lilinamouse2111 Germany and Austria-Hungary were not blameless re. the start of WW1.
However, when it came to the concept of "setting up Europe for failure", the lion's share of the blame goes to Russia, France, and the UK.
Notice how almost every history book mentions the M-A-I-N causes of WW1, and of that "A" is for alliances. It was the alliance system which caused the "domino stones" to topple one after the other.
It was Wilhelm and Berlin which tried to change the alliance system, to remove the built in "automation", and as the main benefit, remove the threat of a 2-front war, but their plans to do so were torpedoed at every possible opportunity.
Russia, France and GB wanted to keep Germany "under the boot" of encirclement, so they could control and/or threaten its trade and international expansion.
They wanted to expand their own sphere of influence, markets, and colonies, at the expense of Germany, making dirty little backroom deals amongst each other, excluding Berlin wherever possible.
Greed destroyed Europe.
2
-
@lilinamouse2111 One such example of changing the alliance system, is the Treaty of Bjorko in 1905, and signed by Willhem II and Tzar Nicolas.
If ratified, and as foreseen to include France, it would have served as an early form of collective security for every citizen of continental Europe.
Of course, GB could have used the temporary Russian weakness in 1905 too (Tsushima, revolution, etc.) to conclude a separate peace with St Petersburg, with good prospects of success.
Once implemented successfully, it would have engineered an "impossible big war scenario", per treaty clauses (google this treaty for more info. The wiki article has the exact treaty clauses).
Wilhelm always wanted peace.
A peace which would not draw Germany into one of the many imperialistic Russian "adventures", and potentially drag Germany into a resulting war with another power.
Notice the complete absence of secret land exchanges, scheming little "side plots", the "signing away" of 3rd party territories or rights...
A truly visionary concept.
But of course, for visionaries to succeed, it needs a visionary environment.
2
-
@lilinamouse2111 Tzar Nicolas signed Bjorko, but was outvoted by his 2nd tiers...
Because Russia (1905) was already in discussions with GB (Japan's ally), re. "a deal" concerning the Dardanelles. That is on record, and not speculative. There was obviously more "in it" for St. Petersburg to make a deal with London (chance of expanding into a long desired sphere of influence), rather than with Berlin ("only" a chance of peace between Russia, Germany, and by extension, to include France).
By ratifying Bjorko, it would have been for St Petersburg to convince Paris to "sign up" as well, something they obviously thought too difficult.
As it was, "little a deal" with London could potentially bring them access to a warm water port.
[See the entire "warm water port"-narrative, which is also established historiography, not speculation]
London is on record for dangling "a sweet carrot" in front of St Petersburg's ever greedy nose, in order to torpedo a "grand alliance" on the continent.
Duplicious as ever, Grey made a non-committing "promise", and St Petersburg fell for it:
Note all 1905:
"Foreign Minister Sir Edward Grey thought entente with Russia a good idea. On 20 October 1905, during the election, he said:[10]
...if Russia accepts, cordially and whole-heartedly, our intention to preserve the peaceable possession of our Asiatic possessions, then I am quite sure that in this country no government will make it its business to thwart or obstruct Russia's policy in Europe. On the contrary, it is urgently desirable that Russia's position and influence be re-established in the councils of Europe.
and later, writing to his ambassador to Russia Sir Arthur Nicolson:[9]
It is not for us to propose changes with regard to the treaty conditions of the Dardanelles. I think some change in the direction desired by Russia would be admissible and we should be prepared to discuss the question if Russia introduces it.
In early 1907, Alexander Izvolsky, the Russian ambassador at Paris, raised the question. and talks were carried on in London with Russian Ambassador Count Alexander Benckendorff. Little is known but the "suggestion appears to have been made that Russia should have free egress from the Black Sea through the Straits, while other powers should have the right to send their vessels of war into the Straits without going into the Black Sea" together with some talk of "Russia's occupying the Bosphorus and England the Dardanelles, after which the Straits might be opened to other warships as well." In the event nothing came of the discussions at the time.[9]"
[Wiki]
Obviously, London made "promises" to St Petersburg it never intended to keep, just to avoid an alternative alliance system on the continent, which would have ensured peace (as a "collective system" of security).
Bjorko would not be ratified.
2
-
@thevillaaston7811 The only thing "wall to wall" here is your lack of historical comprehension :-D
"The mid-1870s witnessed a series of violent rebellions against Ottoman rule in the Balkans, and equally violent and repressive responses from the Turks. The Russian Tsar, Alexander II, wanting to intervene against the Ottomans, sought and obtained an agreement with Austria-Hungary. In the Budapest Conventions of 1877, the two powers agreed that Russia would annex Bessarabia, and Austria-Hungary would observe a benevolent neutrality toward Russia in the pending war with the Turks. As compensation for this support, Russia agreed to Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.[9]"
[From wiki]
It was a simple "territorial exchange", or the mutual agreement of "no interest".
Russia got the "rights" to annex parts of Besarabia.
Austria-Hungary got the "exchange" to annex Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Aka "a bilateral deal".
They simply just didn't annex Bosnia-Herzegovina immediately.
If the power mongers in St Petersburg have a short-term memory, and then throw a hissy fit (in 1908) in order to "save face" in respect to their own upset citizens (see there), that is really their problem, aka "war mongering".
Austria-Hungary did nothing wrong.
Nice try, [yawn] again ;-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I see.... The USA has the most powerful "weapon" on its side: feelings.
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, Hasan is the facts don't care about your feelings analyst reminding Americans that "as you sow, so shall you reap"...
He is pointing out that the citizens of USA are a victim of the monsters which ttheir leaders create, fund, and help organise as divide and rule tools...
Ignorance of the own government's evil, does not protect individuals from harm.
Indifference to the millions of deaths and mutilated victims you create, does not protect you from consequences.
Complacency while knowing the truth, is not a defense.
From globalresearch
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”
During the 1970’s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.
Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980’s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.
America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.
The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now [2015] the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.
2
-
GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs.
Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent.
Of course, London already knew this.
That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem:
Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900).
And so "poor little Belgium" was born.
Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"...
France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war.
The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about-turn Jedi mind-control trick on weak minds :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first.
Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals.
It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up.
Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights".
It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Snowflake comment.
Hasan is right.
Stop the emotional arguments....
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Let’s look at specific countries, and US meddling in THEIR world, shall we?
No more "fluffy emotions"....deal?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What can every person on the planet do to actually start making a difference. Start pulling the rug from underneath their feet...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
2
-
Avoid unity = division: divide-and-rule.
The dividers have convinced you that life is a "rat race" and that "life isn't fair." Here is what they DON'T tell you, the reader of this essay. It will never be fair, because it is a divide-and-rule world, in which all the dividers need, is a geopositional location of POWER (wealth/influence). Once reached, and achieved with the "silver spoon"-method (aka advantage of birth, one-way street for them, because it is a lot closer from "silver" to "gold"), the objective is to use the ratchet principle so the own peers and friends remain in these positions, which are naturally limited in number (zero sum world/nepotism). Sorry, there isn't ROOM for millions of billionaires or even millions of more millionaires, and it isn't about the money either (another big lie in stories of BIG LIES).
The structure is a PYRAMID, and is designed to always be a pyramid. It's about the RESOURCES of the planet, and money controls access to the resources. Life isn't a rat race (another lie), but "chipmunks gathering nuts" and the trick is to make YOU think that the only way to "make it big" is if you can kick all the other little chipmunks "down" and "out" of the system of gain, that YOU will then be the one "on top." Reality? You are just a little chipmunk, kissing up and kicking down, pointing fingers at other little chipmunks, so that OTHERS above you gain in a divide-and-rule world. At the end of it all, you might or might not own a few nuts, and be happy, having exhausted yourself in the "system," making others in the pyramid on a higher rung, mega mega mega-rich...
The dividers in Washington DC have always needed chipmunks to spread division all over the world, whilst spreading their myths and legends about being "good guys".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thewriteplaceforme6874 Your examples are again, not valid.
West Berlin had an airport, people could travel freely, and there were two or three ex-territorial highways and railways connecting it to West Germany without controls or checkpoints. It was fully in control of its own electricity, water supply, and had foreign allies (US, British, French) protecting it. When the SU did try to blockade it, these allies jumped in to save it from starvation (the famous Berlin Airlift).
East Berlin is totally out of the picture, since it was a part of East Germany, without any possibility by NATO to blockade it, or coerce the population.
2
-
2
-
@thewriteplaceforme6874 There is a difference between something which is very similar, like Gaza and the Warsaw Ghetto, where the occupying force has total control over the everyday activities of their enemy, and something which is completely different, like Berlin during the Cold War.
Any West Berliner could hop on a plane and fly to Spain for a holiday, get into a train and go to Hamburg without a visa, or without having to beg the USSR for permission.
The inhabitants of Gaza have no airport, no international connections, and need to apply to Israel if they wish to leave Gaza even tempory.
You are trying to create an "apples/oranges"-style comparrison, which is disingenious. Your technique might work on the uninformed, but peoole who inform themselves, spot these attempts at misdirection immediately. Just give it up.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Delogros Only...well, uhm...GB didn't defeat fascism.
That was mainly Stalin, while Winnie "more than measure" Churchill lost the British Empire....
After WW1, British and French leaders went to Versailles under the rather childish illusion that the SU and Germany (both not invited) would stay weak forever and ever and ever....
They ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.)
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = we were bombing alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to play "balancing games" with...
That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable", "who started it", etc., etc. are of course all bs premises for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, because British elites did not advocate war "because of Belgium", but because of a policy the lords in London had decided upon loooong before the Kaiser was "building ships", and "wanted colonies".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
A policy called Balance of Power, which practically dictated that GB would always join the weaker side, irrelevant of "right or wrong", and the only way GB could have realistically stayed out of the continental war about to unfold, was to abstain from the selfappointed role of "balancer" for the continent.
It was British leaders, deciding in London, and this free choice had nothing to do with anything any continental leaders did, or didn't do.
Why did GB join WW1?
As simple as asking "Would GB have stayed out, under any circumstance?" To which the answer is no.
The choice of making an entire people an enemy by default, long before they had even done anything to deserve the status of "enemy", had far reaching effects...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Break the bonds between the powerful.
You can help.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There is only "history".
As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives".
One perspective should not rank higher than another.
Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable".
The reality?
As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here is the context.
I'll help you out...
....but, you must be able to concentrate for 3 minutes, and read :-)
As Robert Kennedy Jr. notes about the history of the ME:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster
So who was it that went to their world, removed their moderate leaders, and replaced them with religiously indoctrinated nitwits?
Correct answer: Our religiously indoctrinated nitwits who wanted to turn people into tools....lmfao...
The USA absolutely loooooves Jihadists, as long as they don't act against the USA.
Or, that Biblical logic: "the people shall reap what your leaders have sown"...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Keeping Germany as "down" as possible, and keeping Russia as "out" of any comprehensive European solution as possible, for mutually agreed upon comprehensive security agreements is a recurring issue in European systems interacting. It mainly turned out as very beneficial for outside powers, especially the USA.
Not only logically, but also statistically, should Western continental Europe and Eastern continental Europe ever unite, with shared good relations to China, it would overpower the USA as world hegemon. Basically, keeping Central European "brains" (innovation and technology) and Russian "muscle" (manpower, strategic location, plus raw materials) apart, has a long history which spanned two empires. The British Empire before World War 2, as stated in Mackinder's Pivot of History (1904) and the new American Century after 1945.
It started a long time ago, with the British Empire setting out to avoid more unity, and breaking up the Three Kaiser League as a stated goal. "Disraeli also achieved a hidden objective. Beaconsfield revealed to Henry Drummond Wolff that the British mission to the Congress of Berlin had two major objectives. Next to making a tolerable settlement for the Porte, our great object was to break up, and permanently prevent, the alliance of the three Empires, and I maintain there never was a general diplomatic result more completely effected. Of course, it does not appear on the protocols; it was realised by personal influence alone, both on Andrassy [the Austrian representative] and Bismarck. The members of the Three Emperors' League were Austria, Germany, and Russia. The Congress of Berlin drove a wedge between Russia and the other two members. Germany formed the Dual Alliance with Austria in 1879 to protect one another from possible Russian aggression. The treaty remained in effect even after Russia requested a renewal
of the Three Emperors' League in 1881. The Dreikaiserbund [Three Emperors' League] never did recover from the Eastern crisis while Disraeli was in office, and its later revival after Gladstone put 'Beaconsfieldism' into reverse took a different and less stable form." from THE FOURTH PARTY AND CONSERVATIVE EVOLUTION, 1880-1885 by KEITH RICHMON OWEN, B.A., M.A. A DISSERTATION IN HISTORY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in August, 2000 (p.25)
Therefore, speaking about the post-2000 attempt of keeping Russia "out" of Europe, by encroaching on it with NATO expansion might well not be a "mistake" as stated by David T. Pyne (historian), but a geopolitical strategy, and it has a long history. If it were a mere "mistake", it would be amazingly recurring:
- attempts to break up the Three Kaiser League (by London)
- attempts to break up Treaty of Bjorko (by London)
- Versailles (Limitrophe States as a barrier in Eurasia, by London in conjunction with Washington DC)
- The quasi "declaration" of the Cold War (Churchill/"Iron Curtain" speech)
- Truman Doctrine (by Washington DC)
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the (Washington DC) administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]" Or as the old insider joke went: NATO's function was "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out." (Lord Ismay)
Whether these are real "mistakes" (sic.) or a concerted strategy lurks behind as ulterior motive, remains hidden.
2
-
2
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage" see footnote), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. They would wait.
This is divide-and-rule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Keep a lookout for the ingroup jargon.
In case you don't know what that means, it is highly likely you are already in an ingroup, but not aware of it.
The next level to the ingroup, is "the cult."
When one cannot recognize the typical cult behaviour of devout compliance to an ideology, one is already firmly embedded in "the cult" of a belief system.
Telling someone who is in a cult, or a belief system, that they are indoctrinated, is usually a waste of time.
Ideologically indoctrinated politicians and power players who lie, and the warriors they incite to fight to spread their ideologies are the root cause of all evil in the world.
One doesn't even have to infer much, since they will tell you straight in your face, because they are so rich, proud, hectoring, and squibbing that they are blind as to what they are a part of.
So far, so good.
Most people will happily agree to the above, since their "finger" is already "pointing" elsewhere.
Blissfully unaware, that...
According to the dictionary, an ideology is an organized set of political or economic ideas... for example, "democracy" and "capitalism," both of which are ideologies.
If one tries to list all the ideologically inspired lies and deceptions by politicians who have started/bandwagoned wars to (quote) "make the world safe for democracy" the list will be long and the victims uncountable, because the ideologues don't even bother to count them.
Except of course when it's "the other side". Then they list them exactly, and continuously create Hollywood movies and TV documentaries about the "other sides". In these (his)stories, "we" (ingroup) are always the good guys. Anything else will not "sell" well.
Millions of deaths and total ruin emanating from London and Washington DC to spread their ideologies and empires, and that's just the wars since 1945. Not even to mention the death and destruction of events before that. It is futile to educate the masses who are going into the trenches about the harmful effects of war. People already know it, but they are powerless against the forces that are leading entire regions into war. These top politicians, who sit in sinecure comfort in peacetime and have bunkers in wartime, have no intention of bearing the consequences of their decisions.
Carl Jung on psychoanalytic dicta: "If you cannot understand why someone did something, look at the consequences and infer the motivation," and similarly, Jordan Peterson: "If you can't understand why someone is doing something, look at the consequences of their actions, whatever they might be, and then infer the motivations from their consequences."
The so-called "collective West" is inundated with ideologues.
2
-
The question posed to Asians (mainly Chinese and Indians/citizens within these borders) remains the same as during the era of imperialism 200 or 300 years ago.
The obfuscators and dividers will use the same techniques in reasoning as they use in politics: they will "hop around" on criteria, causing dissention in debates on the micro level (society), in the same way the power players "hop around" on entire countries/governments/capital cities/key politicians in geopolitics on the macro level...
The technique of "divide and rule"...
Hop over here, hop over there, whatever standpoint brings the own short-term advantage, because THE POWER has the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of not having to suffer consequences from it's own actions.
The question posed to all Asians remains.
Whether they can see that they are in the same positions they were in 200 and 300 years ago.
The dividers come with "promises" which they mostly don't intend keeping, or offer "treaties" (in which these dividers themselves hold the geographical advantage of distance), make all kinds of excuses why the dividers don't keep their promises, or why the dividers don't suffer the same percentage of harmfull effects in times of crisis/war as the "chosen ones", just like 200 or 300 years ago. These promises are very enticing to power players, and offer the prospect of glory and achievement to the side the promises are made to, just like 200 or 300 years ago...
Anthony Blinken making some Indians FEEL (§§§, see footnote) very proud with repeated offers of NATO membership, just like previous US admins made such promises to the Ukriane, which no doubt made many Ukrainians FEEL very proud, and then the dividers with the geographical advantage, subsequently citing all kinds of "difficulties" why such "pwomises" then cannot be effected in a short timespan.
Meanwhile, exposing the "Ukraine"/proxy to extreme danger as the feet were dragged and dragged and dragged...
Of course, in the game called divide and rule, it is not the fact THAT it is a ridiculous offer, in view of recent events in the Ukraine exposing the danger of such folly, but rather the fact THAT such an offer is repeated. The fact THAT the offer is on the table, already causes mistrust/dissention amongst ASIAN neighbors.
Of course, if India refuses, the divider (of Asia), Washington DC can simply go to China and "promise Taiwan" to Beijing (signed away) in return for a deal, to surround Russia. The potential for "divide and rule" rests on the side with the geographical advantage, as long as the targets for division do not unite, specifically with a comprehensive Asian security agreement.
The question to Asians remains the same.
What are they going to do to create a SINGLE HEGEMONY (alliance) in East Asia, in order to speak with a united voice, against the POWER of division.
BRICS is not enough.
Any other deal or treaty, or the SCO in the current setup, or even the "UN's" laws and the "rules based order" cannot stand up to the POWER of divide and rule.
It needs a comprehensive security agreement for all of those in the FRACTURE ZONE 4 (stretching from North Pole, via Japan, Taiwan, through Thailand, the Indian subcontinent, towards the Middle East).
If no comprehensive security agreement is achieved, mutually beneficial for all, then simply wait for 200/300 year history to return ("rhyme")...
Or are Indian leaders like... first they came for Russia, but I did not care because I was not Russian. Then they came for China, but I did not care because I was not Chinese, and even saw an advantage for myself (economy) if China got "carved up" and weakened...
Indian leaders: It'll be great, if WE can CONTROL the WATER flowing into China, from Tibet...such tempting "offers" and promises...
"Around 1900" repeating for Tibet.
Finally though, if everything is burning, divided, in quagmire of revolution and war, and Asia the "new Middle East" as unfolded after the 1882 British invasion, followed up closely by the "Sir Lawrence"-types as the dividers of Arabs". The modern day version of that being the "Anthony Blinkens" of the world, finger pointing, and harsh language between neighboring states, and a tumbling towards "quagmire"-status, then who will speak up for India when the dividers come for you?
DESIRABLE OUTCOME in any divide and rule system: The dividers will subsequently have the "upper hand/higher ground" (leverage) of POWER for all future negotiations with the resulting "statelets", just like the ME after World War 1.
The secret towards more Indian "power" lies in the continued "power" of its neighbors, not these neighbors' weakness.
§§§Footnote: The appeal to emotion
Setting up the emotions generated by billions of minds, to set these minds up against each other, just like 200 or 300 years ago...
2
-
2
-
2
-
Same as "Belgium" was an excuse for war, and not a reason.
"The neutrality of Luxembourg had been guaranteed by the Powers in the Treaty of London of 1867. [After the German invasion]...The prime minister immediately protested the violation at Berlin, Paris, London, and Brussels. When Paul Cambon received the news in London at 7.42 a.m. he requested a meeting with Sir Edward Grey. The French ambassador brought with him a copy of the 1867 treaty – but Grey took the position that the treaty was a ‘collective instrument’, meaning that if Germany chose to violate it, Britain was released from any obligation to uphold it. Disgusted, Cambon declared that the word ‘honour’ might have ‘to be struck out of the British vocabulary’."
https://blog.oup.com/2014/08/2-august-1914-luxembourg-british-cabinet-demonstration/
So what exactly then?
Were the Treaty of London in 1839 and 1867 "binding defense pacts", and/or "an obligation to act", or wasn't it?
Or maybe simply the truth: the Treaty of London was an excuse for war, not the reason.
The objective was to incense feelings of hate in GB, because GB had a volunteer army which needed "angry young men" to flock and enlist...
Of course, had Germany never invaded Belgium, London would have simply looked for some other excuse somewhere along the way...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kathybikadi9854 Thank you for reading.
What connects the topic of this video, as "compartmentalized history" and 99% ancillary details, with the bigger overall European "picture"?
It is "divide and rule" as THE "systems/strategies" tier of things, as the 1% of history that counts...
Exemplary of a divide and rule/conquer strategy:
Entire regions of human beings are used or set up as proxies, as "walls" or "Limitrophe States" to seperate potential areas which might unite.
Wiki: "In modern history, it was used to refer to provinces that seceded from the Russian Empire at the end of World War I, during the Russian Civil War (1917–1922), thus forming a kind of belt or cordon sanitaire separating Soviet Russia from the rest of Europe during the interwar period.[4]... The nations were then "the cards to change hands in big political games" and included the Baltic peoples, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians."
These nations were, and still are today, simply "tools" for the empires who hold the geographical advantage of power.
When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think*** today.
Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer of and over continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers.
These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology).
Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.
Has it ever occured to you that if a policy or strategy "divided Europeans" with a "ruling" (Versailles Treaty), that it actually fits the definition of the the "divide and rule" technique?
The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group. As for Wilson, was he really that naive to think that the large and prominent forces of isolationism would not prevail, and lead to the USA/Washington DC not joining any collectivised system of security for the entire planet? Was there really no "Plan B" in Washington DC?
Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
The "oh so fine" British Lordships thought they could play divide and rule/conquer games with the world, and in the end British citizens and military men lost bigtime, as at the very end of the Empire, their own Lordships took off with all the loot of 400 years, to the tax havens they had created (see Timeline/The Spider's Web re. the history of "tax havens").
While the average Brit had to "scramble for the trenches", the fine lords "scrambled for the tax havens" (notable exeptions in both cases).
The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely.
No, this is not a "yet another conspiracy theory," but elaborated and provided with sufficient evidence, and inductive/deductive reasoning on the other channel/video.
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
**As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the *systems/strategies tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.
2
-
2
-
So Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
2
-
2
-
"Good cop/bad cop" strategy of power, of "liberal imperialism" vs. "neocon imperialism".
The aim is expansion.
On the small tier like settler colonialism (both current and historical), as well as for entire "empires" like the American Century (or the British Empire in the past).
THE MARCHING ROUTE OF THE EMPIRE
Summary under the video description of a UCLA video of an interview between Henry Kissinger and Jack Matlock:
"The 1994 discussion between Henry Kissinger and Jack Matlock revolved around the contentious issue of NATO expansion and its implications for U.S.-Russia relations and Eastern Europe's stability. The debate was set against the backdrop of Russian opposition, articulated by President Boris Yeltsin, who warned that expanding NATO could lead to a "cold peace" and further isolate Russia. Kissinger supported NATO expansion as a necessary step to ensure the security and sovereignty of Central European countries like Poland and Hungary. He argued that delaying expansion could create a geopolitical vacuum, leaving these nations vulnerable to influence from both Germany and Russia. Kissinger viewed NATO as a stabilizing force and an "insurance policy" against future uncertainties, emphasizing that such moves need not antagonize Russia if managed through diplomatic and military assurances. Matlock, however, cautioned against hasty expansion, noting that Russia's current weakness did not pose an immediate military threat. He believed that NATO expansion might inflame nationalist sentiments within Russia, complicating its internal politics and its path toward democracy. Instead, he argued for prioritizing economic integration of Eastern European nations into the European Union and maintaining diplomacy to address Russian concerns. The conversation highlighted differing perspectives on balancing security, diplomacy, and the risks of escalating tensions in post-Cold War Europe."
Arguing "two sides of the same fence", which was systemic expansion into Eastern Europe, using Russia's weakness after the fall of the USSR. The good cop arguing for the slow-paced systemic expansion to avoid creating discomfort in another system, whilst the bad cop was arguing for a "rapid expansion to avoid another power filling a power vacuum".
Easy to overlook? Both were arguing for the same thing though, systemic expansion.
The marching route of the empire.
The use of millions of people as instruments of power to cause friction in Eastern Europe with NATO expansion in order to overpower a weakened Russia, was the set path in order to assure US "primacy" per strategy (Wolfowitz Doctrine, 1991). The smokescreen as cover was provided by the parallel running promises of comprehensive security agreements, OSCE, Partnership for Peace, et al whilst the feet were dragging, dragging, dragging, dragging...
The goal? Carve Russia up, and use the pieces left over to encircle on China, the next in line after Germany (Treaty of Versailles/post-WW2), and siphon off the riches for own gain.
Divide-and-rule/destroy/control simply moved further east.
“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.” — Henry Kissinger (attr.)
When these few have the MEANS, they CONTROL the resources, and that includes human beings all over the globe as potential proxies as "human resources". They want what is under the feet of the Russians (see footnote).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Footnote
Regarding the strategies our leaders follow.
They have not changed much over time.
Divide-and-rule.
Age-old strategies to advance own interests, which do not exclude cheating their "friends" and Christian "brothers" in the Caucasus.
The Ukraine, Poland, Taiwan, Georgia, and many others, take note.
"Friendship" does not exist on the ladder to success, or to stay on top of the pyramid kicking down.
What do they want?
A tale as old as the Bible.
Esau and Jacob is of course a cautionary tale to beware of brothers who come to you with a GIFT which has morphed over time and now means "winning means everything". Note that in this biblical "tale" about eternal deceit and "cheating own brothers out of their inheritance", that the deceiver is the hero of the story, and this warning has been taken as a guideline by strategists.
Those who end up with the RICHES under your feet, are the heroes. The deceiver's name and slimy ways continue.
Esau the inheritor and his father's favourite, as a name has sorta died out. Just remember, wherever you live, that you just a "dog" in a "manger" (Churchill), and that the RESOURCES intended to be passed onto you as natural inheritance, belong to these OUTSIDERS, in these OUTSIDERS heads, and according to the strategies of these OUTSIDERS. The "smooth talking good guy", the spiffy clean deceiver, scamming his own brother, whilst arguing like a woman creating division within unity and creating the BLACK LEGEND of his brother (the "bad guy"), is the "hero" of history. The original wedge diplomacy, to avoid unity between the owner of the resources, and the inheritor. Very telling indeed.
The owner/donor/ruling class want your "inheritance", and they will lie, steal, and send their ki!!ers to get CONTROL of it...
Divide-and-rule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Mister3Pac We live in a gl8bal world.
Advances in technology meant that in 1939, Poland was connected (geostrategy) to Manchuria (Khalkin Gol), in the very same way that in 2014 Venezuela was connected to Iran, and Putin sending strategic bombers there...
In the same way that "Belgium" was set up as a geostrategic barrier to protect the British Empire. Morphed out of the desire to protect Central Europe, after the end of the Napoleonic Wars.
Today, Putin sending forces to Venezuela (threatening the age-old Monroe Doctrine's validity), is exactly the same "game" which the Nazis played with the Legion Condor in Spain in 1938.
The actions are similar, because the actors use the same tools they have used for thousands of years.
It's all about Sun Tzu (Art of War) and Machiavelli....
When studying history, beware of falling for superficial explanations about the 'how' and 'why' events unfolded the way they did.
Oh, and BTW.
The fact that you cannot grasp the way the world works behind closed doors, doesn't mean that it isn't the reality we live in.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries.
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@matsjonsson9492 I know the "Hitchens position", because you're actually quoting him.
I wouldnt give the "job" of deciding what gate speech is to anybody specific.
It's as simple as defining the criteria for hate speech, by broad consensus and then using existing courts to deal with it.
It is really not that complicated.
Same as it isn't a "traffic police" deciding on whether my "driving too fast" is an offense or not. Whether I personally think "driving 50 km/h here is dumb, so I'll drive 70" is irrelevant. The police documents the event, protocols, gathers evidence, etc.
Courts then decide.
That is how a well-governed society works.
If somebody practices hate speech in a mosque, on a website, at a rally, etc. then they get rounded up and courts decide. Nobody gets to decide whether "kill all Spanish people" should be acceptable or not.
Round 'em up, trial them, throw 'em in a dungeon. No mercy :-)
Why should this be a bad idea?
If Hitchens had still been around, I would have told him the same, and he would have said "I don't care about your facts, because I've got my feelings" :-)
Hitchens was wrong on this, I'd take down his arguments in favor of hate speech.
He was wrong, same as he was wrong about invading Iraq being a jolly good idea. I was was right on that one too.
2
-
@matsjonsson9492 No, my conclusion is always in the final paragraph.
I wrote that the G7 must address this, not single nations.
It is human nature to act in self-interest.
Therefore the constant battle to undercut each other must first be stopped by the states where most of these billionaires come from.
Then, the second step is to pressure havens for the corrupt (Lichtenstein, Switzerland, Cayman Islands, Ireland, Singapore, etc.) to bow down and accept the rule, if not = sanction them.
Only if there are no safe spaces and no loopholes, will tax justice exist.
As long as there is always another way out, these tax evaders will make use of it, to everybody's disadvantage.
Have you seen their latests scam?
The mega rich are buying luxury appartments on cruise ships, claiming to live on board for 6 months, making them technically un-taxable under international law.
I'd say. Slam 'em with a nice juicy fat "disembarkation fee" as soon as they try and step onto land somewhere :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
Why is anybody surprised that an empire keeps on voting for an imperialist?
----------------------------------------
One of the most common counter-arguments to criticism of the American "forever wars" these past 250 years, is that "The USA isn't an empire, because it never sought territorial gain." True, but one doesn't have to change any borders if one has already reached the top of the mountain, looking down at the minor powers (proxies/chosen ones) one will play divide-and-rule with.
During the Era of European Imperialism, and carrying on seamlessly for the past 100 years or so, the world has been global Apartheid with a two-tier "us/them" system of everything: from concepts such as "wealth" to "justice" and "control", and with "gardens for a few" and "jungles" for the rest around the perimeter, and any deep changes can be vetoed by those who hold the true power. To explain how divide-and-rule works, one can analyse the behaviour of any hegemony, regional power, or otherwise applying power downwards. With the silent consent of the USA/collective West during the First Cold War (1947-1990), the REGIONAL HEGEMONY in Southern Africa was allowed to play their divide-and-rule games (aka "Apartheid") in a region of their world which was all of Southern Africa, constituted as being South Africa, Rhodesia, Namibia (own sphere of direct/indirect influence) and the outer regions of Angola, Botswana, Zambia, or Mozambique, and that the borders need never change in order to play the "games" of divide-and-control/rule. It was CONTROL of their own borders, and control OVER the neighbors, which they sought. Notice that the borders never changed, but Apartheid/divide-and-rule flourished anyway. According to the same "logic" it should be fairly easy to brush away any criticism of the actions of the Apartheid state South Africa and its "forever wars" during the Apartheid era, with a flippant "The RSA never sought territorial gain." All historical European global empires, incl. the British Empire, were of course "Apartheid empires" since they had two/three tier systems as default settings and they had different sets of "rules" for "me and for thee" as rules-based ordering others around, and considered this state of affairs perfectly OK. Of course, imposing such "rules", paid off handsomely in the upkeep of the "gardens & pools". They practice divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, from their "gardens", as "my rules trump your weakness", just like South African systems of power did in Southern Africa, not only inside the own borders, but beyond.
Apart = separate = divide.
Divide the "jungles" in the rimlands, to keep the "gardens with pools" nice and luxurious...
Divide-and-control/rule.
Israel is another RSA, which plays the same games in its "rimlands" during the current Second Cold War (reality), with the approval of the USA, just like SA did during the First Cold War from 1947 to 1990.
A globally operating HEGEMONY can likewise play the same divide-and-control/rule games everywhere on the globe and the borders need never change in order to play the "games". The previous HEGEMONS had the clout to practice divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, just like Washington DC systems of power did in the USA, not only inside the own borders, but beyond. To play games, the borders need never change. All it needs is POWER, a set of rules for ordering everybody else around, and a position of impunity from any setbacks. The attitude is then that somebody else can pick up the tab. Today, our easily-deceived Western leaders in the self proclaimed "good West" (not strategists) tell us that there will be peace, as long as everybody adheres to the belief system that "the borders may never change". Everybody who changes the established borders is "evil" (unless of course, it is the own capital cities, or their proxies doing so: then it is "justified" by finger-pointing somewhere else). The own two-tier "us/them" system says so, so it must be "true."
----------------------------------
FOOTNOTE:
Should anybody dare to oppose the official "good side/bad side"-narrative of the rich sitting on their thrones of power in their "gardens", the disinformation playbook of the empire will strike back, and their MO will be predictable:
The Fake: Conduct counterfeit narrative and try to pass it off as legitimate research.
The Blitz: Harass those who speak out against the empire and its friends.
The Diversion: Manufacture uncertainty where little or none exists.
The Screen: Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies.
The Fix: Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy.
The technique is common in the systems of "capitalism/corporatism" and "democracy/globalism" and can be examined in meta studies. It's almost guaranteed that as soon as one reaches the "sensitive zones" of the empire and systems of gain, the MSM words flak will get real thick, and the apologist knee-jerk reactionary forces with their multi-million dollar/Euro/Pound imbursements will get really really triggered...
2
-
2
-
2
-
Unfortunately, your lords don't agree with you.
They didn't in 1914, and they don't today...
Yes, because British elites did not advocate war "because of Belgium", but because of a policy the lords in London had decided upon loooong before the Kaiser was "building ships", and "wanted colonies".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
A policy called Balance of Power, which practically dictated that GB would always join the weaker side, irrelevant of "right or wrong", and the only way GB could have realistically stayed out of the continental war about to unfold, was to abstain from the selfappointed role of "balancer" for the continent.
It was British leaders, deciding in London, and this free choice had nothing to do with anything any continental leaders did, or didn't do.
Why did GB join WW1?
As simple as asking "Would GB have stayed out, under any circumstance?" To which the answer is no.
The choice of making an entire people an enemy by default, long before they had even done anything to deserve the status of "enemy", had far reaching effects...
2
-
2
-
2
-
Around the year 1900, the Germans as the Superimperialist set out to bring the British Empire to its knees and rule the world.
Of course, everybody knows this was the focus of their entire existence...their sole purpose in life.
They were soooooo jealous...
The crowning achievement of each and every German, as everybody knows, was to finally "bring the British Empire to its knees". Everybody knows every single German constantly obsessed and fussed about the powerful British Empire from the minute they woke up every morning, until the time they fell asleep every night.
Only...
...this obsession to bring the British Empire to its knees...
...was not German.
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt.
On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with.
After both World Wars, the crowds understandably cheered the end of the war...
Meanwhile as the crowds cheered, in the background, big daddy USA ate up the British Empire and turned it into the junior associate power.
2
-
2
-
The "Western moral superiority"-fans are just crying because they realize that the good ol' days for the American Century, which came about because the rest of the world was basically destroyed for the 40 years after WW2, are coming to an end. In 1945 when everybody else was "down" in power, and "exhausted" (reality), the USA could almost single-handedly employ the DIVIDE-AND-RULE STRATEGY over the rest of the planet to skim off the world's wealth at the expense of 95% of the planet, disguising the desirable hegemony as philanthropy and benevolence.
Around the year 2000 the USA as sole hegemon could have done their best, but they chose to do their worst (PNAC, and so on).
The rest has arisen from those ashes of 400 years of exploitive colonialism, 5 years of worldwide war (1939-45), and more than 40 years of Cold War (1947-90) filled with proxy bloodshed which kept everyone else "down", and which affected every corner of the world...except the USA which could act as financier (distance from the war zones).
Now the good ol' days are over.
----------------------------------------
If you're not in the club of US/collective West "superiority" (sic.), just remember: The USA/collective West have never had any ulterior motives (lol). All they want to ever do, is "save the world from the bad guys" (more lol). It IS just like that, because the WEST says so themselves, so don't argue (super lol).
"In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population ...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
Obviously, simple math means that it left the rest of the world (around 94%) to somehow get along with the rest left over. To have considered that as even remotely fair, regardless of any other circumstances, speaks volumes. Today it is still roughly 30% in the hands of 12% of the global population, as the rest rises. Again, silence on this speaks volumes. How were in the past (Age of European Empires), and are the 1%-ters in the West and their international friends TODAY (global elites/globalists) going to ensure that this desirable and ADMITTED (quote) "inequality" and dollar disparity continues? THAT is the question they are trying to deflect from, with endless cycles of circular reasoning.
Answer: With the divide and rule technique of top-down power, in efforts to split the main BRICS nations and other rising and stable regions of the planet apart.
2
-
2
-
2
-
It is easier to divide people and systems than it is to unite them (see below comments section).
Dividing the opposing systems, is the first and easiest step towards power (see below comments section). Once divided, another system's power and strength is decreased, like taking bricks out of a wall, one by one...
Around 1900, Washington DC obviously saw their "opportunity" to step in and divide Europe even more by means of favoritism (see below comments section), as the monarchic principle waned at the end if the 19th century, the death of Queen Victoria being the symbolic "sword in the neck" of the end of the era of European balance of power (est. 1815).
London poured their division upon the planet, incl. their neighbors, waging the finger and exposing every weakness, in search of alignments for own gain, however carefully hidden.
But in the town of Washington DC today, it is well-known that their (economically) fat and (systemically) psychopathic "saviours" economically thrashed London in their hour of weakness, to within inches of their (colonial) lives, and took their beautiful Empire away from them (see below comments section).
Thus, they pulled the bricks out of the wall of European strength, until it collapsed.
Europe is a lost cause...
I'm looking at Asia, to see if they've learnt the "lesson" of the classroom, with a new bunch of US/collectivist West "finger-waging moralistic preaching" by "teachers" who have none...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideoligically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johnnyelvis3173
The leaders of the British Empire seemed to have held the mistaken idea that closer relations with the USA would guarantee their Empire against "greedy continental rivals", but they were wrong.
Because, the type of rule or economy or political model chosen, plays little role in the outcome of whether one "rules the world" or not.
Geography plays a far bigger role.
So at the turn of century London "ruled the world" because geography isolated them from the continent and their island status gave them the upper hand at a time when war was still the common way to determine "top dog" or not. They could play out the ambitions of rulers on the continent against each other, always siding with the weaker waring state or empire, and thereby "engineer" solutions which they perceived would guarantee the survival of their Empire.
When development of weapons produced ever further reaching weapons of war, GB's island status did not offer the same measure of protection anymore...so they went down.
The weapons of 1900 couldn't harm the British Empire, but the weapons of 1945 could....
In that era around WW2, it was the USA which was (as the sole power) isolated from this "great game", and benefited as the result of its geographical isolation...
[Today, with nukes, that "logic" of using (or rather "misusing") conventional wars to become top dog does not apply anymore].
US leaders like Wilson (WW1) or Roosevelt (WW2) knew they just had to wait long enough for European leaders to dismantle what 500 years of empire building had achieved, and to pick up the pieces.
That movement of "going west" started with the consolidation of power (lol "freedom from slavery" for Joe the Plumber....right. Sure, sure....) with the Civil War, and ended when US President Eisenhower forced GB and France (together with Israel) to stand down in the Suez Crisis. For all practical reasons ending the period in history when London or Paris got to decide on the defense or the expansion of their spheres of influence...
If it wasn't yet quite clear who the alpha male was, and who the beta males...that was it.
2
-
@eedragonr6293 The USA did not fight for freedom for Europe when it declared war in 1917.
That's a fairy tale for the uneducated.
The USA is the world's biggest "sphere of influence" grabber and used the wars between European countries to take over from the British Empire as the nr1 in the world (see above).
Washington DC has always followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud, google "The American Century" or the newer PNAC for what US elites send soldiers to war for...
Donald Trump was simply a big oaf who blurted this out aloud, with "America 1st", while previous presidents kept it quiet...
If after WW2 London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles", with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up power" to protect their own empires and own interests, they were to be disappointed...
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
There would be no US support to start Operation Unthinkable, or the seamless start of WW3...
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
With the collapse of of London's Policy of Balance of Power in 1945, the key to "starting world wars" passed from London to Washington D.C.
2
-
2
-
2
-
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl/Historian)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@arudegesture Then we seem to be in agreement on all points.
Yes, that is why I always say that there are few "rights" in history, merely an assortment of "variations of wrongs".
My political alignment is firmly "centrist". Furthermore, I tend to look at facts, rather than be mislead by feelings.
The way I see it, is that due to our (mostly) Christian upbringing, we tend to see the world as either "good", or "bad" (false dichotomy). That distorts perceptions, because most world leaders actually fit the category "basically good men, who gave into their dark side" [thanks, George Lucas :-)]
Obvious exceptions to the rule, and truly horrible, like Stalin, Mao or Hitler are of course easily spotted.
The point of my previous comments is that Churchill (and the other advocates of Area Bombing) gave into his dark side: he thought that by eclipsing the age-old Policy of Balance of Power and totally destroying Germany would leave a "big three" to rule the world.
He was wrong.
Both The American Century advocates, as well as Stalin and the communist "friends" (lol) in Moscow, had no intention of accommodating a crumbling "British Empire".
I have no idea whether Roosevelt was in The American Century "boys club", but I assume he was. Whatever, he was a "navy guy". So he knew how these things work.
2
-
2
-
This "debate" is a total waste of time.
Either intentionally, or unintentionally, the focus of viewers is shifted away from "What really happened".
Reality?
GB/London never ever set out to "save the world" or "pwotect poor Eastern Europeans", or "save the world", but to misuse them as tools to protect and expand their own Empire.
For them, it was always and ever about their own "Empire".
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
OWN INTERESTS, not yours...
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
EMPIRES DON'T MAKE "FRIENDS":
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So after fighting a war of which a lord said "lights would go out in Europe", London continued setting up Europe for failure (see below).
Comparing the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 to the Treaty of Frankfort of 1871 is one of the more popular memes of amateur historians. One often sees this "tit for tat"-logic on YT. There is however little to compare, beyond reparations and territory (Alsace-Lorraine).
Let's have a look at what Prussia (or rather the newly formed Germany) did not do to France, a nation which had both declared war first, and invaded/attacked first in 1870.
1. It did NOT take away the entire French navy.
2. It did NOT take away all the French colonies.
3. It did NOT take away almost the entire French merchant marine.
4. It did NOT cut off parts of France, in order to give it to nations which never even fought (for example "cutting off" the Basque Lands, to hand over to Spain).
5. It did NOT create new artificial states to surround France, and to subsequently create new alliances with (For example "free" Corsica, and then subsequently created a German-Corsican alliance as an official "encirclement policy")
6. It did NOT cut off 15% of the French population, and simply "awarded" them to new, artificial, and independent states, leaving French citizen to travel across a foreign state in order to visit friends and relatives..
7. It did NOT steal pre-war French economical concessions, or French markets, which enabled France (the aggressor) to pay her reparations without the need of excessive foreign debts.
8. It did NOT eclipse the entire French economic sphere of influence in the world, leaving her economy with only France proper to deliver goods to.
9. It did NOT force France to destroy coastal fortresses in the Mediterranean Sea (I kid thee not, Versailles had a clause concerning German coastal fortresses in the Baltic)
In fact, France was (hint hint) even invited to the negotiations, and allowed to make counter arguments, resulting in concessions to the French side (for example, the status of the city of Belfort) in the Treaty of Frankfort in 1871.
1871, and 1919 just cannot be compared...
"Apples and oranges"-style comparisons to deflect from what really happened.
2
-
By 1914 Europe had divided itself into two power blocks.
A circumstance often blamed on Berlin and especially on Wilhelm II.
Two powerful "blocks": Germany/Austria-Hungary in a Dual Alliance (with the "sorta"-partner Italy joining later), and on the other side France/Russia in a military alliance with their "sorta"-partner GB.
These two blocks are often conflated or talked about as being the effects of the same logic and reasoning, or even more fallacious, that the first logically lead to the second (causation).
Only one was a result of necessity.
The other was voluntary, without a real need.
"However, the impact of these decisions [edit for clarification: effects of the Russo-Ottoman War of 1878] had serious consequences on German-Russian relations, as Tsarist officials blamed Germany for allowing England and Austria-Hungary to win major concessions at the Congress (edit: more on that later). And despite a long-standing friendship, the Tsar threatened a war of retaliation against Germany. This sudden crisis helped solidify the growing close relations between Germany and Austria-Hungary, and in October 1879, a defensive alliance was signed by the two German powers. This would prove to be the first alliance in the slow build-up of tensions leading to World War I."
AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Kenneth Allen Shafer for the Master of Arts in History presented June 29, 1989. Title: The Congress of Berlin of 1878: Its Origins and Consequences
Bismarck had to act because of a specifically voiced threat (note: no "feelings" involved).
There was no choice.
Re. the second "block":
Some 20 years after her ill-fated attempt to torpedo Bismarck's German unification process with a preventive war (aka "war of choice") in 1870, the emotions caused by this war had died down somewhat, and Paris was given a "test" by Berlin's new management (Wilhelm/Caprivi): the choice between better relations with Germany (aka "rapprochement") as evidenced by a "New Course" in Berlin after 1890, or expanding her own power by an alliance with another European empire.
Paris' choice was not quite unexpected.
According to the "101 rules of empire building", states have the possibility to increase their power by alliances. And that is what Paris did the minute they were "released" from their political isolation. No sooner than they had found their "new friends" in St Petersburg, and the new power it afforded, than Paris indulged in a more confrontational course against British expansionism, including threats of war, in SE Asia (see 1893).
The treaties made by Bismarck were not aimed at any expansion nor did it have an aggressive intent.
Wilhelm took over these treaties in 1888 because they already existed.
After 1890, Wilhelm II did not extend the Reinsurance Treaty because he wanted better relations with all neighbors: Russia, France and GB. The Reinsurance Treaty had stood in the way of better relations because it isolated France. Wilhelm ended this isolation hoping it would result in a "new course" (under Caprivi) with "simplified/better relations". Unlike the events leading to the Dual Alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1878, France/Russia were not threatened by the "Neuer Kurs" (Caprivi). The often claimed "German threat" by "nasty Wilhelm" was simply a convenient smokescreen for Paris/St Petersburg to hide their real intentions (ulterior motive).
So why did they ally, stating a very specific course of action for the event of an (entirely fictional since never threatened) "German/A-H mobilisation"?
Because such an alliance was "de facto" also directed against GB/Empire, and such mobilisations were only plausible in the event of an Anglo-German Alliance resulting due to better understanding between London and Berlin (potentially possible after a good start offered by the Helgoland-Zanzibar Treaty in 1890).
Fact? Wilhelm never threatened either France nor Russia, but he did hope for a deal or an accord of sorts between Berlin and London, which aroused suspicion in Paris/St Petersburg.
Christopher Clark devotes an entire chapter (with sources) as to how this unfolded in his book Sleepwalkers.
2
-
2
-
Good.
Smart people.
Not kidding.
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dangerisinmy "Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tomspriggs9478 These are "gender roles.
Do concentrate.
There are 2 sexes.
A "gender role" is whatever a society wants it to be.
Because to anybody even halfway informed, would know that throughout history, gender has been fluid. Joan of Arc playing a "gender role" not foreseen by the society she lived in, proves that for example. Remember her? The woman who didn't want to be "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" even though society and the rulers expected it of her?
She wanted to be a soldier (note : soldier = gender role for men)
Did you know that "men were women" and "women were men" in literally all cultures throughout history?
It is in fact during the 1,000 years or so of Christian dictatorial rule that it turned "abnormal", as the Catholic church burned people alive they deemed "witches" (basically, everybody who didnt bow to the dogma of the church, or literally the most extreme form of dictatorship you can imagine).
So.
Today.
As some say those "feminazis with their short cut hair, in-your-face" with their logic.
I once saw one, confronted by tatooed wannabe tough guy with some tough slogans. It turned out she served, and the first thing she said to him was "I'm in the military, defending your right to insult me".
Precious.
The debate was over.
Just accept people the way they are, as foreseen by the Declaration of Independence: the unalienable right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@behind you
What about causes of suicides among the transgender?
Additional article information
Abstract
Background:
Suicide rate and suicidal tendencies among transgender persons are considerably high compared to general population. Hence, this review is an attempt to understand the issues around the suicide and suicidal behavior among transgender persons.
Methodology:
The literature search conducted using three sources, i.e., electronic databases (PubMed, ProQuest, Google Scholar, PsycInfo), manual search (library catalog), and gray literature (consultation with experts).
Results:
The suicide attempt rate among transgender persons ranges from 32% to 50% across the countries. Gender-based victimization, discrimination, bullying, violence, being rejected by the family, friends, and community; harassment by intimate partner, family members, police and public; discrimination and ill treatment at health-care system are the major risk factors that influence the suicidal behavior among transgender persons.
Concerning the last bit about "causes":
Are you sure you are not doing anything that might contribute to the high suicide rates?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hi there "exactly it's called compromise".
In principle, "compromise" is a good thing.
However, in reality, there is something known as "good compromise vs. bad compromise".
Lemme try and use an example of what I mean, in terms you might be able to follow.
Statement 1:
Let's "compromise with terrorists to find peace"...
Me: Uhm......nope. Terrorism is a fundamental stance, that doesn't accept compromise, and "meeting in the middle" will mean making deals with corrupt crooks that will eventually erode away the compromise, to shift towards a position they want...
Statement 2:
Let's find a moderate position on both sides, based on sound reasoning and logic, that appease a majority consensus, and then make compromises...
Me: yeeeaaahh, cool, peace, yippeeeeee
2
-
@John-lq7hs Yes, I already posted this 3 days ago, and none of you chose to address it.
So, here is my question again...
[note, I'll highlight the important part of the study :-)]
What about causes for such unhappiness and resulting high suicide rates?
Additional article information
Abstract
Background:
Suicide rate and suicidal tendencies among transgender persons are considerably high compared to general population. Hence, this review is an attempt to understand the issues around the suicide and suicidal behavior among transgender persons.
Methodology:
The literature search conducted using three sources, i.e., electronic databases (PubMed, ProQuest, Google Scholar, PsycInfo), manual search (library catalog), and gray literature (consultation with experts).
Results:
The suicide attempt rate among transgender persons ranges from 32% to 50% across the countries. Gender-based victimization, discrimination, bullying, violence, being rejected by the family, friends, and community; harassment by intimate partner, family members, police and public; discrimination and ill treatment at health-care system are the major risk factors that influence the suicidal behavior among transgender persons.
Are you sure you are not doing any of the above behaviour, which might then contribute to their unhappiness, and high suicide rates?
[note, you can chose to ignore this question, in typical flawed dogmatic stance of "if I don't answer it, I'll prove my strength, and remain correct"]
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hi there Trying to link suicide rates to Christianity is disingenuous and bound to fail.
Here, from Sweden, one of the most atheist countries in the world, which shows that a decent monitoring system avoids suicide.
Note, this monitoring can also be religious in nature, but does not necessarily have to be religious:
Suicide in Sweden
Sweden has a very low suicide rate, but this rate can be misleading because it may not account for physician-assisted suicide, which is legal there. In 2012, Sweden only had 12 reported suicides per 100,000 people.
Historically, Sweden has had a high suicide rate, with the most suicides in the developed world during the 1960s. That may have been due, at least in part, to cultural attitudes regarding suicide and long, dark winters, particularly in the northern regions. The government responded to the crisis with social welfare and mental health services, and the numbers have dropped dramatically. Today, Scandinavian countries – Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland – have very high rates of happiness and relatively low suicide rates. However, the dark winters – 20 hours of darkness or more in each day in some areas – causes seasonal affective disorder (SAD), a form of depression, which has been known to correlate with higher rates of suicide...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sugariedreams2707 Why get so worked up about hypotheses which might never need occur? [a law being enforced] Do you understand cause and effect, and the fact that such unnecessary laws need never be, if everybody is just nice, doesn't discriminate, or judge others?
My personal "pursuit of happiness" is to be kind to others, and thereby contribute to a peaceful society.
Whether the "delusions" of others fit my own personal convictions, is irrelevant.
I'll be kind, no matter how "delusional" I personally think somebody is...
Therefore I'll call a judge "Your Honor" even though it isn't "an honor" to meet him, or a policeman "Sir", even though he was never knighted and therefore isn't a "Sir". I'm not going to ask them to qualify their delusions (from my pov).
I guess you're ok with a guy calling his gf "doll" if she likes it...even if she isn't one, or at least I hope not...lol
Your teacher "mam", a guy in a black coat "Reverent Jones", and so on....and so on...I don't need a scientific basis (from his standpoint) in order to just be nice to him...
You see, personally, I believe that everybody who believes he was created out of mud by a hitherto unseen nothing, is deluded. Despite that, I'll call the leaders of such "believers" reverent, Rabbi, or whatever they wish.
I don't need a scientific basis, which they couldn't give anyway.
Because the number of "delusions" from any ones standpoint is certainly infinite.
I don't care about the personal convictions of another human being.
Nothing can stop me from being nice (unless a physical attack, of course).
Or would you refuse any these above mentioned their requests, if they ask you?
2
-
@sugariedreams2707 And the "bathroom thingy".
Did you know that men and women actually used the same toilets for centuries, and that it was only rising wealth and the oh so frowned upon "regulation" that forced separate bathrooms onto us?
Do you know that there are still hundreds of thousands of cafes, small restaurants, and bars in Europe which (traditionally) only have 1 bathroom for everybody?
This is simply because for centuries, nobody gave a (literally) "sh*t.* :-)
What's the problem with separate cubicles for all, as it had always been before that oh so dreaded regulation came along and forced cafes and restaurants to have separate bathrooms?
(Note, separate stalls, wheelchair accessible bathrooms, nappy changing rooms, etc. already exist, to ensure your privacy in certain situations).
Or is it a problem for you if somebody sees you washing your hands?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sugariedreams2707 Then we are in agreement concerning titles, gender pronouns, and preferred etiquette of being addressed in a certain way.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not a big deal.
Whatever makes the recipient happy.
My motto is "just be nice". Smile, and the world will smile back, and all of that.
Also, as far as I'm concerned nobody is going to get chucked into jail for getting it wrong, so what's the big deal.
90% of people, in their daily lives, will never even meet a transgender.
I'm 55, and I've never met one. So again, no big deal.
Thing about cause and effect though, is that the bullying, discrimination, insulting language, degrading remarks and real life disadvantages (getting fired from a job or losing an apartment) came first and the effect of that was a law.
I don't think such a law would ever be made use of, unless it was as a direct result of the above.
We should not stand up for dubious "rights" of bullies and assh*les to be bullies and assh*les.
2
-
@sugariedreams2707 As for the "bathroom thingy".
The idea idea is actually to simply return to the way is was for many centuries.
The single bathroom, which all can use.
As you have noted, it is not only cheaper for small cafes, but also better in the way of flow. Have you ever seen those long queues in front of the ladies, whilr the stalls in the mens were unoccupied?
Dumb, I would say.
A much better use of the space (and cheaper to build) is one big room, with separate stalls. That way anybody can just go in wherever they want.
There is no need to build "special bathrooms" for each and every person, gender, or sex.
One bathroom, one room, one door (many separate cubicles inside).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
POWER. DOESN'T. CARE.
Maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are trapped in a "divide and rule world", and it has been all about PROFITS and CONTROL over the people.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@woke2woke153 I know the "story."
It is the appeal to emotion.
It was already countered by Ben Gurion in the 1930s when he asked "how is what happened to us, their problem?" and "we stole their land/country." (paraphrased)
Reality at time? The people of the Levant/Palestine were not responsible for the suffering of Jews in Eastern Europe.
European leaders took the easy way out, and unloaded the burden of their historical guilt, onto others who were not consulted.
It is a very easy biblical logic, and moral question already pointed out as "put yourself in their shoes." Or, with re. to Europeans, that of NIMBY: not caring what happened far away, when Europeans litarally shipped their "problem" abroad, to the powerless peoples of the Levant.
Was resulted out of that was resistence to imperialism, with a clear causal chain of effects.
Today there is always the tendency to skip the history which isn't convenient, and "start" the timeline somewhere in the middle of the entire story, so it sounds better.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@harry.flashman The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." -- Walter E. Williams
2
-
2
-
Brits thought they were sooooo clever and make a "pig's breakfast" out of Europe, as they always did as a matter of policy.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister [rolls eyes and laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister (shortened)
No "satire" there at all.
Not "funny comedy" at all if one ends up as a "tool" of London's little divide and rule schemes.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists...
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against Germans and Russians (see Limitrophe States) and Russians against Romanians (see the Little Entente).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife. Divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Ask the affected millions what they wanted for themselves? Nah. That was below the lords...
So in 1939 Stalin and Hitler came along and made "a pig's breakfast" of the London lord's little scheme for their "divided continent" (see Secret protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact). They colluded, and made a pig's breakfast out of Poland. A pig's breakfast out of the Little Entente. The Limotrophe Staes? Right...more pig's breaksfast...
The lords wanted to play divide and rule with the continent's inhabitants indefinitely, for own gain, and in the end the UK became a junior partner and tool of Washington DC, and they lost their Empire. Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945 and a subsequent few years.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was reduced to the status of "a scrap of paper".
Awww. Sad. No nukes for the "special relationship" best fwiends. Subsequently Washington DC used British weakness and made a pig's breakfast out of British markets (economic warfare), and re-divided the world into "east and west".
Didn't anybody notice?
The world went from a divided continent, to suit the expansion/protection of the British Empire/London, to a divided world, to suit the expansion/protection of The American Century/Washington DC.
Awww...poor British Empire.
They wanted to "sow" their pig's breakfast to everybody else, and evtl. ended up "reaping": forced to eat their own words.
Lovely.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mrcool2107
The reality?
As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mygl4490 The war on drugs is real, creating the type of conditions in which crooks like Maduro thrive...
"The war on drugs is a largely unsuccessful campaign, led by the U.S. federal government, of drug prohibition, military aid, and military intervention, with the aim being the reduction of the illegal drug trade in the United States.[7][8][9][10]The initiative includes a set of drug policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs that the participating governments and the UN have made illegal. The term was popularized by the media shortly after a press conference given on June 18, 1971, by President Richard Nixon—the day after publication of a special message from President Nixon to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control—during which he declared drug abuse "public enemy number one". That message to the Congress included text about devoting more federal resources to the "prevention of new addicts, and the rehabilitation of those who are addicted", but that part did not receive the same public attention as the term "war on drugs".[11][12][13] However, two years prior to this, Nixon had formally declared a "war on drugs" that would be directed toward eradication, interdiction, and incarceration.[14] Today, the Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates for an end to the War on Drugs, estimates that the United States spends $51 billion annually on these initiatives.[15]"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Misguided teens" are gathering for support to end the long-term effects of a misguided policy: the War on Drugs.
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal: minor offences like being caught with a few grams of weed...
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
2
-
2
-
The "Western moral superiority"-fans need to wake up to the reality that the good ol' days are coming to an end.
In 1945 when everybody else was "down" in power, and "exhausted" (reality), the USA could almost single-handedly employ the DIVIDE-AND-RULE STRATEGY over the rest of the planet to skim off the world's wealth at the expense of 95% of the planet, disguising the desirable hegemony as philanthropy and magnanimous benevolence.
As the so-called "Cold War" ended, around the year 1990, the USA as sole hegemon could have done their best, but they chose to do their worst (PNAC, and so on).
Because every watershed of history offers the opportunity for positive change.
What is done with the opportunity, exposes the system/s.
By the 1990s, "the rest" of the planet had arisen from those ashes of 500 years of exploitive colonialism, 30 years of worldwide US/European imperialist wars (1914-45), and more than 40 years of so-called "Cold War" (1947-90) filled with proxy bloodshed which kept everyone in Africa, South- and Central America, and in Asia "down" in power, and which affected every corner of the globe...except the USA and a few "new superior European favourites" (lol) which could act as financiers using their distance from the war zones they instigated.
During the 1990s a watershed appeared, and the opportunity was allowed to slip by, accompanied by a host of apologetics by the "pointing fingers in-crowd" wishing to keep others "down" or "out" of their systems of rule and control.
Now the good ol' days are over.
If you're not in the club of US/collective West "superiority" (sic.), just remember: The USA/collective West have never had any ulterior motives (lol, just kidding).
All they have ever wanted to ever do, was "save the world from the bad guys" (more lol).
It IS just like that, because the WEST says so themselves, then don't argue (super lol).
"In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population ...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
Obviously, simple math means that it left the rest of the world (around 94%) to somehow get along with the rest left over. To have considered that as even remotely fair, regardless of any other circumstances, speaks volumes. Today it is still roughly 30% in the hands of 12% of the global population, as the rest rises. Again, silence on this speaks volumes. How were in the past (Age of European Empires), and are the 1%-ters in the West and their international friends TODAY (global elites/globalists) going to ensure that this desirable and ADMITTED (quote) "inequality" and dollar hegemony continues?
THAT is the question they are trying to deflect from, with endless cycles of circular reasoning.
HOW TO HANG ON TO THE "GOOD OL' DAYS."
Answer: With the divide and rule technique of top-down power, in efforts to split the main BRICS nations, and bring down any other rising and stable region of power the planet which refusing to be vacuumed off like a giant hoover (corporatism), splitting it apart with a NEW COLD WAR, then blame everybody else.
The superior USA/collective West, where you have the freedom of speech to say what you want, and those who rule the world (haves with the money) have the freedom to fire you. Guess who has the true power?
Or, in other words, they have the money to hire you for a well-paid position ("carrot" of incentive) if you say what they like.
If you live in Africa, Asia, or anywhere else, don't rely on any "superior westerner" (sic.) or local collaborator to tell what I will inform you about: How their power works.
People who are confronted with uncomfortable truths, simply fall into the "let's not talk about that"-mode because they WANT to point their fingers somewhere else, which is a cognitive bias or fallacy in reasoning.
"When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie." - Yevgeny Yevtushenko.
When the truth of the new reality finally sets in they fall silent and do not speak, confusing "silence" with "strength".
Some say the most dangerous of all animals are the stupid. I say, it is the silent.
I am warning the peoples of Africa, and Asia, and South & Central America against my own so-called "leaders" and the people who follow these types.
Regardless of all the apologetics, the USA/collective West are still imperialist systems to the core, and it is exposed by the mainstream rhetoric: There has never been a war of systemic and ideological expansion these imperialist supporters did not like, revel in as "fighting bad guys", or ignore, or apologize for. Notice how their "Cold War" (name branding) was your "hot wars" (strategy of power). The mainstream did not care enough for REAL changes 200 or 100 years ago, and they did not care enough 50 years ago, and they did not care 25 years ago, as they do not care today either. Lindey's Law on full display. As long as the wars are far away, and they have their "cheap tanks of gas" and good life, do not expect them as collective to care (exceptions to the rule are of course highlighted by the MSM of the "liberal imperialist" system).
In fact, what a crowd of lessons do the present miseries of the world teach us. Never to have an hereditary leader of any sort; never to let a citizen ally himself with outsiders; never to call in foreign nations to settle domestic differences; never to suppose that any nation will expose itself to war for you for free. There is always a price tag.
They are beyond help, because their entire setup is dogmatic. "We" are "always right." Therefore, balance them out with own systems of power and unity.
When they come for you, fingers waging, send them home.
Be nice, but send them home, and solve your own problems peacefully as a commons.
Never fall for the rhetoric, because they will NEVER accept that their own constant eternal wars of DIVISION are evil, never mind how many die or end up as refugees, without shelter or in hunger.
Balance them out.
If not, you will suffer.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
How to rip/deceive a "sphere of influence" from a rival, and create "the proxy" to do the heavy hitting, while "sitting on the fence" eating popcorn and chips.
"...this report assesses the associated benefits, costs, and risks, as well as the likelihood that measure could be successfully implemented and actually extend Russia. Most of the steps covered in this report are in some sense escalatory, and most would likely prompt some Russian counter-escalation. Some of these policies, however, also might prompt adverse reactions from other U.S. adversaries — most notably, China — that could, in turn, stress the United States. Ultimately, this report concludes that the most attractive U.S. policy options to extend Russia — with the greatest benefits, highest likelihood of success, and least risk — are in the economic domain, featuring a combination of boosting U.S. energy production and sanctions, providing the latter are multilateral. In contrast, geopolitical measures to bait Russia into overextending itself and ideological measures to undermine the regime's stability carry significant risks. Finally, many military options — including force posture changes and development of new capabilities — could enhance U.S. deterrence and reassure U.S. allies, but only a few are likely to extend Russia, as Moscow is not seeking parity with the United States in most domains."
RAND Report (2019)
The Plan was followed verbatim.
Available for free, for all to read, on the internet.
Sorry, no "Jermins" involved in drawing this up to point fingers at...
"Most attractive" (sic.) to make the megabucks, and of course if one is "the good guy, eternally on the right side of history" is if others die (as revealed by "the honorable" Dan Crensaw and the likes).
And what does "could stress the USA"(sic.) mean?
Who exactly is ending up "could be stressed"?
The upper 10% holding 80% of the wealth and assets?
No, it is of course the lower classes worthy of being "written off" (middle class and below, 50% of whom couldn't even pay a 400$ emergency), and the extreme poor.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ERH-ph5gb I made the same statement about the aristocracy/nobility recently in a warning to Greenlanders when the "hedge fund babies" come to their shore to graze everything off. These outsiders are not connected to the land and have little moral grounds to care much about anything but short-term profit.
I wrote: "Machiavelli: "And it is seen by experience that only princes and armed republics make very great progress, whereas mercenary forces do nothing but harm …"
Read the books on strategy and the allegories about power, and read them as INTENDED, not as somebody interprets them FOR you...
Machiavelli stated that it is the "princes" (connected to the lands, often hereditary gatekeepers) who actually cared about a region, because these regions were the centers of their own "insider" wealth/power. But when the "mercenaries" (foreigners, vested interests) arrive, as foreigners who are in it only for the profit/gain, that is when entire regions are dragged down in circles of international corruption. When the "mercenaries" of international hedge funds, mining companies, foreign armies, foreign-approved politicians, and other examples of ivory towers ("revolving doors" models of power) step in and build up, you will not rid yourself of these (mostly) outsiders easily again." (end of)
Once these locusts swarm in, they will graze off the wealth of entire regions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
After WW1, the London lords thought that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire.
In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies...
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe those London lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
Long before that, an own policy called Policy of Balance of Power made Germans the enemy as a default setting.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
A policy which made the strongest continental power the "rival in peace/enemy in war" as the default setting, irrelevant of right or wrong.
Ah well. Too bad.
So the London lords stiff-upper-lipped their crumbling Empire into extinction...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@anitamwd and @aliciafletcher
I noticed some overlapping points in your dialogue, which create confusion.
Please allow me to explain my observation:
You are both commenting on a principle Jews have claimed for themselves only, while denying this claim to the people who lived there in 1919. Since they are in power in Tel Aviv/Jerusalem, Jews call the shots and determine the laws of the land. The people in power, called "politicians," overwhelmingly do not care if these laws are unfair towards the people who lived there in 1919, and their descendants.
To take a completely different example:
Say "Indians" in a diaspora, all over the world. These individuals do not have an "automated right to return" to India (country), simply because their ancestry, or DNA states so. It is states, and politicians which decide on that. That makes this "point" of "right to return" a bs-attempt at sidetracking a debate, and such examples are often raised by Zionists, imperialists, or their apologists (the PragerU/Shapiro"-camp of "banner wavers" and slogan chanters).
Rgds 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Churchill was a terrible grand strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created facts: The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
2
-
2
-
Apparently the London lords weren't smart enough to follow a policy they themselves had devised and imposed on Europe, to protect their "Empire".
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In February 1942, the decision was taken to make the German people (not the Nazi Government or military) "the enemy".
By destoying Central Europe, they destroyed their own "scale" which they intended to "hop onto" in either war or peace, this side now, the other side another time...
After the war there was nothing left to play "balancing games" with anymore.
They had destroyed "the scale" which protected their own Empire.
After the war, this weakness was then soon exploited by their "WW2 best fwiends", who would armwrestle the British Empire into the ground with a series of well-aimed but devestating own political/economic policies.
The British Empire reminds me of that cartoon of the dumb lumberjack sawing off the branch he is sitting on.
And today?
Still the kids are shouting: Here, a bigger saw..."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Unfortunately, in history, one must often "start" at the consequences of own actions, in order to point out mistakes which happened along the way.
In the big picture of things, spotting mistakes as a contemporary witness is far more difficult.
True today. True at any point in history.
Furthermore, in order to "avoid history repeating itself", one must first admit that mistakes were made.
Also own mistakes.
Because, according to biblical logic: only by "removing the splinters from own eyes", can we avoid "sowing seeds", which we all "reap" at some point.
So here is how European reign and domination of the world ended in 1945, and a few subsequent years (short version, longer version below):
At the end of WW2, the USA (American Century) refused to honor an important treaty Western Allied leaders had made in Quebec.
A treaty/agreement almost nobody had ever heard about.
With that, Washington DC intended to become the sole nuclear power, and not share (as promised per treaty) nukes with London/GB/Empire.
By doing so, the new alpha stated that it did not want an equal power at eye level. They wanted a "junior partner".
And with that, they became the new alpha.
Rule Britania, repealed and replaced by the American Century.
Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana.
Rule the Waves? Let's put it this way. No more "Two Power Standard". Who had "the bigger one"? :-)
Washington DC (The American century) was in a position to "tear up a scrap of paper" and not care what anybody in "old Europe" thought about it.
Washington Internationalism/The American Century, the other "new power" rising across the Atlantic, whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”
It's interesting to google that quote. Of course it refers to a timeless political strategy, which is true at all times, and explains a lot about the headlines we see in the papers today.
Anyway...
Re. the concept of "being able to spot an anomaly" as history unfolded forward. Of course, it does not "happen backwards", but there is a timeline.
Machiavelli's "balance of power".
Of course Machiavelli didn't invent the concept of "balance of power", but was one of the first to put it down in words in western literature.
Would a true Machiavelli have ignored the noticeable change/shift in the "balance" of the powers at around the turn of the Century? (1900)
Note that the reality of the time was that while GB/Empire and the rising USA were roughly equal in "power" at the time (around 1900), only one of these 2 "powers" had the potential to hang on to her power as the world noticeably changed around the contemporary witnesses at the time, and at least for wise leaders, also in the foreseeable future (Washington DC as the firmly established soft power "master/hegemon" in the Americas, vs. London the "still master" of an outdated 1,000+ year old colonial model).
Would a true Machiavelli have snuggled up to a power without being able to "leverage/hedge" any deal (treaty/accord/agreement/etc.) it made?
Would a true Machiavelli have relied on "appeals to emotion" (like "everybody speaking English") to ensure a dominant position?
Last time I checked, "snuggling up" without also being in a position to "leverage" and/or "hedge" a deal, wasn't in the book (The Prince).
Re. the concept of "how history unfolded aroun the turn of the century, around 1900": reality (aka "the truth") created an anomaly in the algorithm on the timeline of history.
Stalin spotted it, and he intended to imitate it.
I'm sure he identified the "weak links" of Western European domination set up by Versailles by the "Big Three", and other post-WW1 treaties, without Moscow being consulted.
The early Communism in One Country advocates in Moscow, soon to become World Communism: "Observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership."
I'm sure he read a lot...
2
-
2
-
@julianerikson4191 Maybe if he cared so much about workers rights, he should join a union.
Obviously, he doesn't want to answer the obvious which is that for a first job 36,000 a year, plus 100% health coverage, plus paid holidays, plus sick leave, isn't bad.
Seeing that the average American salary is 49,000 per year, which includes people who have worked 20 or 30 years.
Of course, they don't grasp that Bernie doesn't preach fiscal irresponsibility, but sound social democracy which mixes the best of both worlds.
People who haven't lived and worked in Europe for a period of time wouldn't understand. They prefer to rage against something they don't understand.
Fear mongering by channels like FOX, Shapiro, and PragerU does the rest. They are shi*t scared because of the bs being preached to them...
Of course, they don't notice that those who preach "bootstraps" to them, eat from a richly laid table.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works."
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and friends, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others.
The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same strategies of expansion as they did 500, 200 and 100 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care. As always, the warning voices of the sane halves are ignored, downplayed, "finger pointed" at as "unpatriotic," or as being "in bed with the enemy", and many other forms of equally "rhyming history." It is what they spend billions on every year so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching to the jolly tunes.
The systems and corporations came in droves for SYSTEMIC EXPANSION and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE...
A little piece of the Ukraine for a little NATO base...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In the 1950s, your "entitled douncebags" started it, by proclaiming themselves master of another people's world...
As Robert Kennedy Jr. notes about the history of the ME:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster
The USA absolutely loooooves Jihadists, as long as they don't act against the USA.
Or, that Biblical logic: "the people shall reap what your leaders have sown", or something like that...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1948?
Oh, it goes back looooong before that.
THE PROTOTYPE US COLOR REVOLUTION
It's old, very old.
"In March 1786 Jefferson joined Adams in London on several items of official business ... In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution had been defeated and its leaders, who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, (EDIT: THE "MAIDAN"-STYLE REVOLUTIONARY TRAINING EXPERTS HANDING OUT COOKIES) were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile by the Stadtholder, William V, Prince of Orange, in league with the old oligarchs and with the intervention of Britain and Prussia (EDIT: the monarchical principle of keeping the Holy Roman Empire, therefore the European balance of power, intact by suppressing such revolutions). Adams and Jefferson agonized for the Dutch Patriots, (EDIT: the "freedom fighters not terrorist"-narrative, because they are OUR "trained terrorists") but felt that they had been betrayed by their own excesses as well as by their Bourbon ally."
(from ugapress manifoldapp)
I'm sure the revolutionary trainers were very disappointed by the trainees, same as trying to instigate trouble in Georgia the past 20 years or so.
WHY HOLLAND?
The ulterior motive for such support by Washington DC of revolutionary movements in Europe, in strategic locations, was at least partly clarified: "... the proud wave of democracy was spreading and swelling and rolling, not only through that kingdom, but into England, Holland, Geneva, and Switzerland, and, indeed, threatening an inundation over all Europe.” While in spirit on the side of the "reformers" Adams was sceptical of their success and of one thing was absolutely sure: “that if they aimed at any constitution more popular than the English, they would ruin themselves, after setting Europe on fire and shedding oceans of blood.”
(from ugapress manifoldapp)
The evolving violence from the "revolutionary spirit", same as the 1980s in Yugoslavia, in the pre-2014 Ukraine, Hong Kong, Myanmar, and everywhere else the USA supports such movements all over the world, which could always be exploited in a divide-and-rule strategy of power for own gains, and sold to the generally unaware global public as "supporting freedom and democracy". Of course, and regarding the original PROTOTYPE US COLOR REVOLUTION should revolutionary France and revolutionary Holland unite that would create the "pistol pointing at the heart of England", a strategic danger to Great Britain posed by Antwerp. Such a resulting constituted reality, would not have please the London lords at all, and it could be expected that in London “the English, they would ruin themselves, after setting Europe on fire and shedding oceans of blood.”
This is how a divide-and-rule strategy is aided and deepened, by supporting a "side."
That is what happened in May 1803, when London finally expanded the previous series of limited continental engagements, into a fully fledged world war.
In the shadows of this "world war" the USA could then expand in North America, which is exactly what they did (study the expansive events in the USA from 1803 to 1815).
This is how divide-and-rule works in a society inundated with it, and predisposed to "believe" the truths they read about are also "always right."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If you live in a frontier fort composed of civilians, intended to surround a concentration camp, then what did these settler colonists expect? Neighbors who bring them candy and flowers?
Hamas was created by Israel as a divide and rule intention, to undermine the PLO. Search that and one will find hundreds of articles, incl. from Israeli sources, who will confirm this Israeli strategy of deceit.
Gaza is the world's biggest concentration camp, ringed in by a cicle of Kibbutzim, inhabited by settler colonists. If you want to know what's going on, ask a Jwe. They will honestly tell you straight in your face, and dare you to resist: "We are a generation that settles the land, and without the steel helmet and the cannon's fire we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home.” Moshe Dayan
The intention is ethnic cleansing, and a pretext is needed to vacate the land under the terror of cannon fire, in order to create the next concentration camp, ringed in by the next ring of Kibbutzim, inhabited by the next selction of future "victims of terrorism"...
What you are witnissing today, is the own biblical "logic" of "reap as you sow".
Israel INTENDED to "sow division" between the peoples of Palestine, and now they are "reaping" the effects.
Not a nice personal tale, agreed, so sorry about the personal misfortune of living in a frontier fort, and becoming a tool of encirclement.
But the own personal decisions to live a life as soldiers of fortune, using own families as a human shields, whilst surrounding an open-air concentration camp, sometimes have unhappy consequences...
2
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS/GLOBALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS/MILITARISTS. Their branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Dakerthandark Countries with mixed ethnicities which are created by the people (from the bottom up) like the USA and Switzerland, unite against an invader.
Countries with mixed ethnicities, which are created by force "from the top down", the opposite happens. For example Yugoslavia in 1941, which collapsed in 11 days, mostly because millions of Croats, Slovenians, Bosniaks, and others, refused to fight "for Belgrade".
Same would have happened in 1938, had there been a war between the 7.5 million Czechs, and the more than 80 million Germans.
What makes you think that the 3.5 million Germans, the 700 000 Hungarians, and 300 000 Ukrainians would have fought "for Prague"? [Note, these citizens were never asked what they wanted for themselves in 1919, and simply awarded to the artificial state "Czechoslovakia"]
What makes you think that the 2.3 million Slovaks, when given the option of Independence by Hitler (as indeed happened in 1938) would have preferred fighting "for Prague"?
Finally, what makes you think that the German Panzer pinzers would have attacked at the strongest fortresses, instead of going through Austria and Slovakia, into the unprotected belly?
[Note, in 1940, the Panzers didn't attack the Maginot Line directly, and they in fact did attack through a completely unexpected route]
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@patriciabrenner9216 I have a better idea for you.
Instead of spreading hatred in a post-WW2 united Europe, why don't you rather sign a petition to get current French leaders to apologize for the millions of victims of French "lebenstraum" dreams in North Africa?
820,000 victims before WW2, and another 1,5 million victims of French crimes of war of oppression, murder, massacres, rapes, pillaging, a divide and rule policies, after WW2 (colonialism).
"There will be "no repentance nor apologies" for the occupation of Algeria or the bloody eight-year war that ended French rule, Macron's office said, adding that the French leader would instead take part in "symbolic acts" aimed at promoting reconciliation."
[FROM FRANCE 24]
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lord2529 WW1 was a war of choice.
Because each country which joined WW1 did so voluntarily, with the exception of Belgium.
There were no binding defense treaties (like NATO is today). The leaders of each country therefore implemented what is known as "war of choice". Each nation only has its own historical leaders to blame.
As far as "poor Belgians" as Casus Belli for GB and the Empire....
First off: "poor Belgians" was an emotional argument, same as "WMDs" and "Saddam Hussein involved in 9/11" back in 2003....and its always the same people who are going to be fooled by it. The young, and the ignorant.
Belgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB.
In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
According to historians, the British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war", in other words, Belgium was Casus Belli.
Correct?
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". In other words, no invasion, no Casus Belli...
Also correct?
Berlin therefore approached London, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
Belgium was a so-called geostrategic barrier to ensure the Policy of Balance of Power, and protect the British Empire. GB fought WW1 for own interests, not the "safety of others" or any other emotional argument.
2
-
@lord2529 Same as today, emotional arguments are always a good substitute of the legal basis for war is missing.
WW1's "Serbian brothers" or "poor Archduke", and "poor Belgians" were all emotional arguments, to cover the fact that there was no legal foundation for the various actions carried out.
It fact, the only legal declarations of war was done by Germany.
Because after the French gave their blank cheque to Russia, and Russia mobilised, Germany had every right under international law at the time to carry out a preventive/preemtive war against Russia and France.
Google "Caroline Incident", which was the guidelines followed by the world's nations to determine "preventive war" or "just war" at the time...
The Caroline Incident.
Anticipatory self-defense
This incident has been used to establish the principle of "anticipatory self-defense" in international politics, which holds that it may be justified only in cases in which the "necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation". This formulation is part of the Caroline test. The Caroline affair is also now invoked frequently in the course of the dispute around preemptive strike (or preemption doctrine).
[note here that Russia and France failed the Caroline Test, because it does not cover 3rd parties, like Serbia. In other words, Russia could not claim to be legally correct, by pointing at "poor Serbs" (emotional argument), because they had no treaty with Serbia, and only had a French "blank cheque" in their pocket]
2
-
@mtlicq Thank you for reading.
Yes, please copy (and do your research re. the key points I refer to).
Yes, everything I write can be googled for more info. My comment are not just cheap "conspiracy theories", but based on the biblical wisdom re. "the seeds we sow", and if "bad seeds" are sown, there will be a "harvest", to "reap".
The following essay re. causality might also interest you. I'll copy it in below.
rgds
This debate is completely pointless waste of time.
Same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
Footnote 1:
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
From Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under... "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA® was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the first.
See what happens when ones leaders try to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own?
2
-
Reality with re. to the "good whites" who "abolished slavery".
Slavery was abolished, because there was more to be gained by abolishing it, than by perpetuating it.
In a changing world where more and more people were becoming literate (mid 19th century), and newspapers and knowledge spread widely, it was simply a good "finger pointing"-tool.
The states which had abolished it, and paid the slave owners handsomely as an incentive, could now "finger point" at "bad states/people" in a giant propaganda match.
With a few exceptions, nobody "abolished slavery" because they woke up one morning feeling sorry for "poor slaves" lanquishing in misery.
In GB, the families who gained millions over millions of Pounds in return for "abolishing slavery" in a massive "trickle up"-scheme, at the expense of taxpayers, were paid in advance. The last "installment" of this gaint "wealth distribution"-scheme from the bottom up (the armies of taxpayers) to the top (ruling class), was only paid back in 2015.
LOL...BAMBOOZLED...
Sorry "taxpayer class".
You lose.
Again, and again, and again, and again...
The families who received their "reinbursement" for "lost property" (human beings) upfront 200 years ago, still block any and all freedom of information acts, to keep hidden who they are.
YOU are not soposed to find out "WHO GAINED BIGTIME" 200 hundred years ago, but YOU must bleat out the "whites are good people, cos we ended slavery"-narrative...
It was done for gain for the own "empire", at the expense of some other "empire".
2
-
2
-
"The world is on the edge of nuclear catastrophe in no small part because of the failure of Western political leaders to be forthright about the causes of the escalating global conflicts. The relentless Western narrative that the West is noble while Russia and China are evil is simple-minded and extraordinarily dangerous. It is an attempt to manipulate public opinion, not to deal with very real and pressing diplomacy. The essential narrative of the West is built into US national security strategy. The core US idea is that China and Russia are implacable foes that are “attempting to erode American security and prosperity.” These countries are, according to the US, “determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence.” The irony is that since 1980 the US has been in at least 15 overseas wars of choice (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Panama, Serbia, Syria, and Yemen just to name a few), while China has been in none, and Russia only in one (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union. The US has military bases in 85 countries, China in 3, and Russia in 1 (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union." - Jeffrey Sachs, The West’s False Narrative about Russia and China (jeffsachs dot org)
2
-
2
-
When comparing big picture/macro-level events today and 125 years ago, the fact that today's stability is safeguarded by treaties, is clear to most people.
Unity can only be achieved through treaties, which benefit all equally, and which consider the security issues of all equally.
With a negotiated and signed treaty, both parties (bilateral) or all partners (multilateral) know were they are standing, and there are binding conditions which can be refered to, resulting in mutually beneficial rewards for all.
*The foundations of security granted by the EU and NATO (amongst others) are all in the form of treaties.*Such treaties have given Europe its second period of extended relative peace after WW2 (the first was generally considered to be 1815 to 1914). These two periods had only few and limited wars in Europe.
The first lasted almost a hundred years.
As for the second extended period of peace, we shall see...
Bismarck acknowledged the value of binding treaties with mutually agreed upon clauses, as a major contributing factor towards safety and stability. The bigger the scope of such all inclusive treaties, the bigger the benefit for all of those citizens/inhabitants so included. Bismarck intended to enhance the scope of "little treaties" with a local impact, into bigger and more comprehensive treaties with an ever widening impact on those included in these treaties (Dual Alliance, turned into the Triple Alliance). A step by step approach. If not this year, then the next...
The Triple Alliance was open to all, but unfortunately one can only lead a horse to the water, but can't make it drink.
Once there is security via treaties for all, all can grow.
Nothing avoid the Triple Alliance, from being turned into a Quadrilateral security dialogue, followed by a treaty.
True today.
True, 100 or 150 years ago
Furthermore, most people see treaties as only to "address a specific outside danger", which is only half the story. The other half being that it also contributes to the internal unity of the masses so combined "per signature" of leaders, and should such a big picture treaty/agreement be missing, there is the danger that outside forces will open Pandora's Box ("divide and rule", by preying on the emotions of weaker minds in every society...greed, hate, fear, envy, anger, etc.).
It does not matter how "evil" anybody terms treaties like the EU/NATO to be: Only a fool would wish to return to the world as it was 100 years ago with no such comprehensive mutually beneficial binding treaties (EU = mainly economic in nature/NATO = security).
If anybody thinks that the value of such treaties are only determined or "weighed" by the threats posed by outside forces, think again. You don't believe that Europeans can ever become enemies again, and such treaties are meaningless because "people today are different/better"? Look around the blogs and comments sections of the internet. It does not matter how good majorities are. All it needs is a few misguided fools, to get any ball rolling. Once the ball rolls, it quickly snowballs as every Tom Dick and Harry jumps on the bandwagon with the own agenda...
If you believe that good people will create a better world, without binding and mutually beneficial agreements, you are already living in a fool's paradise.
It's like signing away laws/regulations/neighborhood cops on the micro level of society, thinking that the "decency of the many" will then unite and rule...lol, no.
Peace during those times (leadup to WW1) was widely accepted to be considered "honor" for the leaders, and achieved by "balanced powers", not treaties as such. Treaties at the time were broad in scope at the very top (Concert of Europe), and almost all treaties dealt only with specific issues. There was no treaty even remotely similar to what the EU or NATO is today.
Logic of "balance": as long as all powers were similar in capability, then any war would end in a draw or at best a Pyrrhic victory even for the "winners", thereby removing the incentives to use war as an extention of politics or gain.
Logic of "honor": As long as everybody remained "decent" and "honorable", there would be no need for treaties.
A fool's paradise.
Because "decency/honor" is not a defined term, and also not a self-evident truth, and it depends very much on intepretation.
It is subjective as a personal standpoint, and subservient to other factors to those who seek ever more power, wealth, and gain.
As soon as one implements conditions depending on emotions and "gut feelings" rather than signed agreements, one sets the stage for disaster.
And rising imperialism soon set that "stage" for Europe, as easily recognized by the USA, which stayed out or took over a largely ancillary function in "European imperialism" (from an elevated geographical advantage).
The British Empire, at the height of its power at the turn of the previous century (1900) was the key to "balanced European powers" according to the logic of those times.
Historians who refer to the European balance of power, usually forget one major point: the historical "European balance of power" as valid for the entire globe (because here was where "power" was centered), was being replaced by a new "global balance of power" which included the USA. A change taking place at the time ("around 1900") which London would have needed to address.
Note London, not anybody else.
London was the self-proclaimed "balancer of powers".
The need to end its own isolation was recognised.
The "spirit" was willing, but the "mind" was weak though.
Upon closer investigation, London never really ended its own "Splendid Isolation", despite claims to the contrary.
It never signed comprehensive, binding treaties with other major powers, let alone try to thread a comprehensive European security agreement. It never seriously considered establishing a more united Europe, to "balance out" the rise of the USA.
End of Part 1
(This essay is not a singularity, but fits in with other comments made over the course of the past few years under this video, and must be read as a continuous thought with re. to the strategies states/empires employed, and still employ today)
2
-
2
-
He is pointing out that the citizens of USA are a victim of the monsters your leaders create, fund, and help organise as tools of "divide and rule"...
Your soldiers are the extended arm of US corporate interests.
They are not protecting you, but ensuring eternal strive, duress, and war.
Ignorance of your own government's evil, does not protect individuals from harm.
From globalresearch
"The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”
So lemme get this straight.
Not even the smartest lawyers your dollars could buy, could come up with a way to spin and twist words in order to draft an anti-terrorist law, without sending good ol' USA straight behind bars?
LMFAO
Dumb 'murica. Eat the sh*t you created...
2
-
2
-
Looks like the "army of empire apologists" have discovered this video, making the same kind of superficial apologia which a dozen "reaction videos" have already debunked as bs.
*The statement to "govern with the lightest possible hand" (H.W. Crocker) as "indirect rule", is divide and rule/conquer, which is what London did everywhere it went, FOR OWN GAIN.*.
"Lightest possible governing" when it is profitable (one tier), and "benign neglect" if it is potentially favorable (another tier).
The intention of "divide and rule" is not to facilitate unrests or wars, but in order to skim off the highest possible yield, with the lowest possible own imput. Those who "rule" with "light hands" amplify differences, or innocently state there is nothing they can do to try and even out diffences, thereby setting up those in the "cabooses" of the trains against each other, or employ such lower paygrades as "stokers" for the locomotives...
The actions are revealed by the events, not words.
2
-
2
-
@twistedwithmelancholy8436 Comparing the toppling of statues to the behavior of ISIS is a false equivalency.
I'm sure you're well aware of this, since comparing the censorship of a books, free speech, documentaries or similar to toppling a statue of a crook (acting under the guise of a philanthropist) is also known as "false equivalency" (which you can google in case you are unfamiliar with the term).
Slavery was never OK, and if the standpoint is "well, at the time it was considered okay", then that can be countered by "well...who did they ask at the time?".
As "do unto others" Christians, a majority would not have agreed to practices of dragging people away from their homes in chains, transporting them like cattle in the hold of a ship, and selling them on markets like apples or potatoes...
What "do onto others" Christian do you think would have wanted that for themselves, or family if they had been asked for an opinion?
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here is what they say as the carrot (honeypot): That there will be peace in the world, and that everybody can live in Western-style prosperity, as long as everybody becomes like us in the West.
Here is what they tell you: That these US/collective Western governments and privatized imperialist instruments of power "support the people" in "standing up to neighbors" or "resisting their governments."
Here is what they don't tell you. That these regions (which can be plotted on a map as "march route of empires") are not going to be the last such promises are made to.
The intention is to gain these regions as jumping off points for further own "Smedley-Butler"-style corporate expansion.
Once one region has been converted, it is time for the "next in line" a few years later.
They never explain, however, HOW the entire world is going to live a "western lifestyle" if the resources are the constant factor.
They will come with their deceptive "logic" and "reasoning" and their innocent "questions" but they never answer such blatant and obvious contradictions themselves.
For some inexplicable reason, these slime-balls and liars who deceive these naive people in faraway places, don't tell these people that there are not enough resources for the entire world to live "western lifestyles" and even IF they convert, there is NO intention to have these far-flung regions to EVER have a "western lifestyle," because even today it is a well-known fact that it needs the resources of 4 or 5 planets in order for every inhabitant of the planet to live like a Westerner. In other words, in order to fulfill their promises, every American and Westerner (around 12% of the entire global population) will then also have to share equally, and make do with 12% of the world's resources: NEVER. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.
How do we know this? Because it has not happened so far. That means it will also never happen in the future, and they are lying in order to deceive people.
The intention is to let these people bleed and die for the own corporate expansion, and then have the "Blackrocks" move in to gut the available gems of the local economies, and enslave the people into eternal Western led debt-slave taxpayer status for the benefit of these outside corporations and their local collaborators, accompanied by the "eternal finger pointers" and their finger-pointy "logic".
And they need YOU to voluntarily propagate/advocate for such a slimy deceitful loooooong-term plan.
TANNU TUVA: A GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
No doubt, few people have heard about Tannu Tuva...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvan_People%27s_Republic
...a small republic in Siberia, with a relative poor population, and with border disputes with Mongolia, a fair amout of valuable resources, and therefor ripe for a little NED "Maidan"-style secret ops to topple the local government.
The next Ukraine, in a looooooong list of "next Ukraines".
Belarus (White Russians), Georgia, Armenia, and many more, in a well-studied history: the playbook is always the same and this playbook is as transparent as glass. The fact that some of such regime change operations have failed, is irrelevant: they NEVER stop. They will keep on coming, until they reach they goals: bloodshed and death, for the own expansion.
Morph the system, and employ the people as tools to do the own bidding.
Move on, to the next in line.
There is ALWAYS a "next in line."
The map does not lie.
Most favorably, to employ the converted local populations to fight and die while "extending Russia" (actual language used in strategy papers).
Then destabilize Russia from within, one step at a time.
Carve it up into smaller pieces, and use these smaller pieces to encroach on, and encircle the REAL goal: China.
Rinse. Repeat.
The "game" started by London (British Empire) continues, eternally, since there are not enough resources to fulfill the promises made.
These people in these faraway places are doomed to remain in poverty, exploited by a few local favorite elites, who will be the FAVORITES of the far-flung "empires".
FAVORITISM = A divide a rule technique of power (imperialism), all well-hidden behind flowery declarations, hooded language, long words, and (sometimes well-meant I assume) promises.
See the long list of such morphed systems: "democratic" but still poor, because the far-flung empires CONTROL the access to resources (gatekeeping = a bully tactic to keep others "down") all over the world. These people remain in poverty, until the excesses of their foreign steered elites reach such proportions that the people revolt, or choose populist/military leaders, and then that is the excuse used to topple the government, or try to coerce neighboring states to carry out a regime change invasion.
Imperialism 101, gathering their cheering dumbed-down slogan-chanting fanboys and gamerboys, too dumb to realize what they are signing up for.
In case the converts fail, YOU are going to be the BLOOD and the IRON for the empire fanboys in the sinecure comfort of their faraway havens.
Strange how everybody in our current democracies always think only our current leaders are a bunch of deceivers and liars, but somehow the historical leaders were innocent little halo-bearing angels who only wanted peace and well-functioning democracy, because they said so, and its written in a book somewhere...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What most MSM and established historians seem to forget, whilst proudly advocating the "fighting for democracy" virtue signalling, is that it had been the democratic "liberal empires" (USA/GB) which had lain the foundation of Europe`s demise around the year 1900. From the position of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE which afforded the slight edge in power, which was then exploited by seeing to it that others where kept "down" and "out" of the reach of resources which were needed to succeed.
These resources were controlled via that slight edge which geography afforded, at that was true at ALL times. It is a systemic conclusion, which unlike all other theories out there, is true at ALL times, never mind how far one goes back into the past. Those who carry out such "rule," are not going to tell us how they rule by division on ALL tiers, and how they have ruled by division on all tiers for thousands of years. It is about the oldest trick in the book, to rule by division from a position of POWER. They will tell us, their "good fools," that it is all about the good vs. the bad but guess what they are NOT telling us? They never state HOW they manage it.
The top tiers divide and rule, and this functions in one direction only: down, to the base, which is "we the people."
They divide us, but we have no way or means to divide them, the top tiers, in return. The disinformation playbook of the empire will strike back when the empire feels threatened, and their MO will be predictable:
The Fake: Conduct counterfeit narrative and try to pass it off as legitimate research.
The Blitz: Harass those who speak out against the empire and its friends.
The Diversion: Manufacture uncertainty where little or none exists.
The Screen: Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies.
The Fix: Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy.
This closely mirrors the empire's habit of using human beings as tools, as "barriers", "vassals", as "taxpayers" or other forms of voluntary/involuntary support. The empire has ways to employ human beings in direct or indirect manners, including secondary and tertiary functions of support.
These are all typical divide and rule strategies, which are employed on all tiers of systems intent on aggressive gain, and which are therefore typical of all systems of gain, including capitalist and democratic systems. The technique is common in the systems of "capitalism/corporatism" and "democracy/globalism" and can be examined in meta studies. It's almost guaranteed that as soon as one reaches the "sensitive zones" of the empire, the MSM flak will get real thick...
These systems are systemically infested by sociopaths and psychopaths of all kinds, who put interests and profit first, above all else.
Key words for further research:
1) 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
2) Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
3) The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
4) Dr Namie's research revealing the "Four Bully Types"
"As long as people believe in absurdities, people will commit atrocities." - Voltaire
"All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed, they must rely exclusively on force."
"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell, 1984
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Why is anybody surprised? The USA is a divide-and-rule Mecca for the ultra-rich who practice it.
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
2
-
Washington DC/Pentagon doesn't care if they "win" or "lose." Only fools care about the "winning/losing"-false dichotomy. They have already achieved their goal, which is European/Eurasian hate, fear, anger...
It's "divide and rule."
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or the British Empire's Mackinder/Pivot of History before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their geographical advantage.
With re. to how tools to implement the strategy are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as Kissinger implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combated by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today.
Today as we watch on, the Ukraine is being burnt to the "last Ukrainian soldier" accompanied by cheers of "...but, but, but they had a choice!!"
Poland will be next to be given a "choice," if the Ukraine fails as US/Western proxy and tool, in a long list of previous examples of the Washington DC/Pentagon-steered global strategy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If one understands what happened to China during their "Century of Humiliation," means that one then already has the template to understand what is happening today. One can use the historical "template" and apply it in the same manner.
What happened to China during that era, is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today. Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the little minions benefiting from the outside POWER of imperialism to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) crises into "eternal problems," sit by and do nothing as problems foment into violence, revolutions, and wars, or carry out other forms of privatized interference (corporatism) under government protection, or without. Whatever works, details really REALLY DON'T MATTER. Once "fomented troubles" rise out of hand, claim to "just want peace." Then use the little minions as favourites (favouritism = a technique within the "divide and rule" strategy of power) to destabilize an entire region, steer them against other weaker entities, and/or employ them as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regions as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc.
Whatever works for the desired region to be divided/conquered or where CONTROL and domination is required for the economic systems of gain.
There is no way that current day Chinese leaders will not have learnt their very own historical lesson, and allow their very own history to repeat/rhyme, and allow such outside meddling in the own systems to gain traction, AGAIN for a second time.
Every nation or state has its own "Never again!"
European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonial ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon. These citizens, usually around 50% of entire populations, suffer directly ("heating or eating"), or indirectly (soaring inflation), these are all "effects," not to be confused with "causes" (see concept of retro causality, one of the most easily misused ways to skew a timeline of events). Some eventually even end up in the muddy trenches.
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their (temporary) GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
With re. to how tools are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also, that a "plan" and the strategy to effect the plan, are two different things.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as the USA implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combatted by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today, and there is MORE than sufficient evidence for this. Outsiders intent on playing the game, use the revolutionary spirit, in order to hop onto useful dissent, strengthen it, and insert levers which they can pry open to gain own advantages. Beijing is certainly 100% aware of this, so everything you are witnessing today is a political EFFECT, not a political "cause" as some leaders wish to mislead us towards.
Everything you are being told about Berlin, in stages after 1894, 1904, 1907, and 1912, with gathering momentum, were EFFECTS, not CAUSES. That was, based on observation, outside powers with the intention to "divide and rule" Europe, by encroaching/encircling the major continental power, which has never changed throughout recent modern history. The ONLY factor which changed over the last few centuries, was the "major continental power" which had to be CONTROLLED by the outside power who wanted a competitive advantage. The historical parallel, is the "Chinese Century of Shame"-historicity, and is well-known at least to the 1.4 billion inhabitants of China today. Certainly, they also do not wish to become "carved up" and ruled over by outsiders again, for a second time. The template therefore predicts a similar outcome, that of the more encroachment/encirclement, the more likeliness of the "breakout attempt" in some possible future.
Obvious solution for a more stable world, stop the encroachment/encirclement.
Both historically (post-1900) as well as our recent history (post-2000) there seems little incentive for those with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to do so, but rather the repeated attempts to search for tools to do such encroachment/encirclement FOR the outside power/s intent on gain.
Empires do not become dominant because they hand out candy and bouquets of flowers, as most realists are fully aware of, therefore the wise advice to always keep a just/wise "balance of powers. If not, fail.
Power flows to where the attention goes first, in geopolitics, in the form of political policies.
These can be studied by looking at the events themselves, not what another human being tells you (incl. this essay, which doesn't tell you anything, but implores you to start focusing on the well-known events themselves, from which one can then infer the underlying hidden policies, strategies, or objectives).
If you live in East Asia, beware of the "dividers".
The hawks will come looking for "buck catchers" and the doves will disguise it as the "helping friends"-narrative = i.e. the template of modern western imperialism. Hawks and doves working in close unison, although stated as being opposite poles.
They WILL come to you, same way as they came to the Ukraine, following the 1990s.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
11th Hour Remnant Messenger, American Renaissance, American Freedom Party, American Nazi Party, Church of Jesus Christ-Christians, Aryan Nations, Asatru Folk Assembly, Heathenry movement, Council of Conservative Citizens, Creativity Alliance, the World Church of the Creator, Creativity Alliance or Church of Creativity, RAHOWA, EURO, Hammerskins, Identity Evropa, Ku Klux Klan, National Alliance, National Association for the Advancement of White People, National Socialist Movement, National Alliance, Nationalist Movement, The Order, Northwest Territorial Imperative, Pacifica Forum, Phineas Priesthood, Christian Identity, Volksfront, White America, Inc., White Aryan Resistance.
All of the above = "nothing to worry about folks...move along...nothing to see here...move along now....
2
-
2
-
2
-
@felixjoshua7679 What I mean is that for around a hundred years, the Ottoman Empire tried to resist foreign attacks on their soil.
The British Empire and France invaded Egypt, then Italy attacked Libya, and in the Balkans the age of nationalism led to the ethnicities here rising up (see 1st and 2nd Balkan Wars).
All of this meant that over a period of 100 years, the Ottoman Empire shrank more and more, and since the rising mechanization of wars from the late-19th/early-20th gave European powers such a competitive advantage, that further resistance would have been futile.
After the Balkan Wars, the Ottoman Rulers (Pashas) last attempt was to create an alliance with a European power, to safeguard what was left at the time from further foreign meddling (mainly the danger posed by Russia, aiming for control of the Dardanelles).
This geostrategic move (a grand alliance Berlin-Vienna-Budapest-Constantinople) would have indeed protected the remaining parts of the Ottoman Empire.
Russia and France were against this. GB was mixed, but mostly indifferent to such an alliance.
If you look at a map, you'll notice that "little Serbia" was in the way of such an alliance. Belgrade controlled the Danube, and rail connections not secure s long as the entire Balkans was not under the control such an alliance. The assassination of the Archduke was a welcome pretext to get rid of Serbia.
After WW1, Turkey was all alone, at odds with Italy and Greece, and with no potential alliance partners (Berlin/Vienna/Budapest was seriously weakened). That option was gone.
What I meant with "collusion" is that the measures you mentioned was the attempt to make Turkey more favorable to western people. For the people of Turkey, it was a good thing.
Sort of like Saudi Arabia is today also loosening its strict rules and Sharia Law, because the leaders know that most westerners would never ally with a country which didn't uphold western social standards and laws.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bobs_toys The barbarian government is Apartheid Israel...
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
2
-
You don't "win" wars, you just "lose" less...
To "win", Churchill made a pact with the devil (Stalin), and a nation whose goal it was to destroy the British Empire, and take over business interests...good ol' USA.
Would you trust a bank robber and mass murderer?
Your leaders did, and ended up FIRST signing over half the world to Stalin and his ilk, and then fighting him in the "half" that was left.
Korea (carved up at Potsdam), Vietnam, Malaysia, and hundreds of proxy wars on every continent. How many "boys" did you lose here to communist agitation?
They should have read their Bibles. You know that "reap what you sow" bit...
"Won" what?
3rd fiddle?
Broke, munching on war rations long into the fifties, defaulting on debt, squeezed like lemon by yank banks, fighting commies in the Empire, then losing it...lol
Google "The American Century", to find out what deal Churchill signed up for...
2
-
2
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Fact is that Trump, or any other previous admin, did not stop this "(systemic) slow march".
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemony.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quiet or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
Just claim hero status for the self, and blame everybody else for everything which goes wrong.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Already predicted. Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Dresden is just a tiny piece in the puzzle called "the big picture".
The question why it took GB 7 years after WW2, to carry out their 1st nuclear test, even though the technology had already been developed by international scientist (also British) before 1945.
Because its the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and "cute Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world really works...
Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world "you shall not have nuclear weapons!"
[Google how that unfolded with: "history/british-nuclear-program]
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
1945 Washington DC: "If you want nukes, develop them yourself. In the meantime, I'll dismantle your empire. What are you going to do about it?"
That's how leverage works.
Rule Britannia, replaced by the American Century.
Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana.
Why didn't Washington DC/The American Century give their "special friends" the secret of nuclear bombs in 1945?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Correct.
British leaders went to Sudan and Iraq, bombing everybody else, thinking nobody could bomb them...
The instigators like best buddies Harris, Portal, Trenchard and Churchill went waaaay back. They had no problems terror bombing women and children in Iraq during the 1920s, in "ops" euphemistically called "air policing", and kept a secret from the general public back home.
It was justified by the elites in London as "a cheap alternative to land forces".
So what did the citizens of Iraq ever do to GB? Or neighbors? Or did they invade anyone to "deserve it" too?
From historynet:
"Air policing is a relatively simple strategy. Aircraft operating out of well-defended airfields are supported by fast-moving armored car squadrons. When an outlying village or isolated tribe refused to pay taxes or ignored the central government, airplanes would be dispatched to strafe and bomb the offending group. Trenchard explained he could achieve results more cheaply with his RAF squadrons..."
Such fun, terror bombing and strafing civilians, cowering in tents and simple villages made of mud and stone. Such a "great opportunity" (sic.) to test new weapons, like delay action bombs (time fuses), or fragmentation bomblets on innocent civilians...
Once a terror bombing fanboy, always a terror bombing fanboy.
Their pathetic empire's HQ back home in London, Bristol, Coventry, Hull, Birmingham, etc., etc. would one day "reap" as it "sowed", a hundred times over...
Well.
Who would've guessed the 2,000-year old biblical logic counts for all...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of West Asia (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders have made use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people. First Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give a weak mind money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
2
-
Die größte Gefahr für die Welt sind ideologisch indoktrinierte Systeme, randvoll mit „nützlichen Idioten“, die schon immer die Welt beherrschen wollten.
Suchen Sie in einem Wörterbuch nach dem Begriff „Ideologie“.
Es handelt sich um ein System von Ideen und Idealen, insbesondere um eines, das die Grundlage wirtschaftlicher oder politischer Theorie und Politik bildet.
ALLES davon braucht enorme Unterstützung, um aus der theoretischen Ebene der Dinge auszubrechen, hin zu einer real existierenden Form von MACHT.
Es ist leicht, zum Werkzeug von Ideologen zu werden.
Diese Machthaber predigen aus ihren ideologischen „Blasen“, die „Fern-Seher“ genannt werden, und Millionen verneigen sich vor ihnen, und diese Machthaber haben Millionen dazu gebracht, zu glauben, sie sollten für ihre Ideologie lügen und töten und zu ideologisch indoktrinierten Kriegern werden. Wenn die Ideologie, die sie offen und stolz zur Schau stellen, Millionen tötet, sagen ihre Anführer, dass sich der Tod von 500.000 Kindern „gelohnt“ habe (Madeleine Albright), und dass dies überhaupt keine Auswirkungen habe. Millionen schauen auf solche Todesfälle und zucken nicht einmal mit der Wimper. Sie führen ihr Leben weiter. Millionen jubeln und schätzen ihre Ideologen und lieben Führer. Die Ideologie, für die ihre ideologisch indoktrinierten Anführer offen erklären, dass sie Soldaten zum Töten schicken sollten, ist Demokratie in Verbindung mit Korporatismus, und der Slogan, den sie seit dem Ersten Weltkrieg skandieren, lautet: „Machen Sie die Welt sicher für die Demokratie“. Das größte Beispiel für Doublespeak (George Orwell) aller Zeiten: Eigentlich war es immer die Absicht, „die Welt für US Grosskonzerne sicher zu machen“, und andere Regierungen zu unterwerfen, wie Smedley-Butler bereits vor 100 Jahren verriet.
Seltsam, dass die Bibel, die diesen Ideologen am Herzen liegt, nicht sagt, dass man „lügen, stehlen und töten“ solle, sondern dass ihre Anführer sie auffordern, zu töten, um die Demokratie zu verbreiten.
Eines dieser Axiome muss falsch sein.
2
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Right or wrong", or "Was it a war crime", or "Who started", is all irrelevant.
Our elites have divided us "commoners" and "grunts", and are agitating behind closed doors, while we do the squabbling...
Because there's always a big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Google: britannica & balance-of-power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to play "balancing games" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...you loose your empire to the new kids in town...
From the unmistakable "Nr.1" in 1900, down to "merely on par" with Washington DC after WW1, down to "third fiddle" during the Cold War. All in less than a single lifetime...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. The world was divided in "East" and "West".
And down went the British Empire too...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yup.
It's pretty easy to see who has been the agressor for the last 100 years ...
So who started it?
Was it the Iranian navy patrolling "their oil" in the Gulf of Mexico?
The Iran secret service toppling the US government, inposing their "choice dictator" on the the American people?
It's Iran's currency, and fiscal policy, dictating the price of oil?
Is it Iran which has a veto in the UN than can avert any international consensus on every issue?
It's Iran which sent millions of refugees and immigrants into the USA, changing the entire demographics of an entire region?
Or even Iran, supporting Central American drug lords, starting wars in Central America, and helping to flood the US with drugs?
What is it exactly which Iran started?
Cause and effect is brutal, and that "timeline" obviously started with western interference in their world, but I'm afraid that when the bullets start flying, the truth you are stating will die first...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@C05597641 I'm not expressing a "belief". Look up the definition of "belief".
I've already stated the reasoning behind my standpoint.
As a business owner, one receives a license to perform a specific task/duty within that community. A community is common property. It belongs to everyone who lives here.
By voluntarily taking on such a task, one also takes the responsibility of serving the community.
As a business person, one serves the community that issues the license. The license says something like "sells gas", or "bakery".
As an owner of such a business, one therefore has an obligation to do for the community, as the license says.
It works all ways.
As the owner of a petrol station, one can't refuse to fill up a car with gas, because the car has a Trump sticker on the bumper.
That would not be in the interests of the community.
Or a mechanic, who is an atheist, refuses to fix your car because of your religion, and you consequently have to drive 50 miles to the next town.
Allow me to expand further.
Nobody will forbid any religious group to buy some land, put a fence around themselves, put a sign on the front saying "by appointment only", and then only baking cakes for the people they consider "good people". That is private property (like a house).
Same, with anything else.
If a Muslim opens a cafe, is given a license to operate a cafe by the community, he can't deny service to women "because his belief forbids it". It is not "free choice".
If you start allowing this kind of bigotry to prevail, everybody is going to jump on the bandwagon, with their version of bigotry.
Especially in small towns.
Dude, you want towns with 500 inhabitants to have 10 of each shop, catering to each particular brand of bigotry?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nice try at Black Propaganda, Shawn...
From Wiki:
"Black propaganda is a form of propaganda which is intended to create the impression that it was created by those it is supposed to discredit. Black propaganda contrasts with grey propaganda which does not identify its source, and white propaganda which does not disguise its origins at all. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass, or misrepresent the enemy.[1]
The major characteristic of black propaganda is that the people are not aware that someone is influencing them, and do not feel that they are being pushed in a certain direction.[2] Black propaganda purports to emanate from a source other than the true source. This type of propaganda is associated with covert psychological operations.[3] Sometimes the source is concealed or credited to a false authority and spreads lies, fabrications, and deceptions. Black propaganda is the "big lie", including all types of creative deceit.[4] Black propaganda relies on the willingness of the receiver to accept the credibility of the source. If the creators or senders of the black propaganda message do not adequately understand their intended audience, the message may be misunderstood, seem suspicious, or fail altogether.[4]
]" End of Wiki quote.
Why don't you just admit outright that you'll never vote for AOC under any circumstances?
Or, why do you state that "killing babies" is "reactionary leftist".
It is actually the majority's choice (around 70% pro-choice), based on science...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We have to laugh at the weakminded idea that anybody should feel sorry for what happened to GB in two world wars.
True.
Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised. "Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
2
-
2
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS.
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Once there is an inpact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, and big business, and Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
RIP 🙏 For millions of others who finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year long imperialist war in the ME, which has been all about OIL and CONTROL over strategic locations right from the start, there is no need for such drastic measures.
Start pulling the rug from underneath their feet...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bubiruski8067 The so-called "winners" play games with human lives, to advance their own "empires" and dominiation.
From NATOs website:
"NATO Allies welcome Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO and they stand by the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance. Decisions regarding NATO membership are up to each individual applicant and the 30 NATO Allies. No one else. Russia has no right to intervene and cannot veto this process. Like every country, Ukraine has the sovereign right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security, one that Russia has also signed up to, including through the Helsinki Final Act (1975), the Charter of Paris (1990), the NATO-Russia Founding Act (1997) and the Charter for European Security (1999)."
Sounds "fair", right?
It is literally how "divide and conquer" works.
Seriously?
The "alpha" graciously "allows" (sic.) the little powerless "beta" to determine world affairs? ROTFL
It is literally "history repeating" in "rivers of blood".
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...bye, bye..."
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct FACT: they did almost nothing to put their money where their mouths were.
Step 1: Polish leaders first baited by their own dreams.
Step 2: Then pwomises made.
Step 3: Then sold out, when they DID next to NOTHING to save "poor Poles".
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...bye, bye..."
Step 1: Czech leaders first baited by their own dreams of "historical gweatness".
Step 2: Then pwomises made.
Step 3: Then sold out, when they DID NOTHING to save "poor Czechoslovakia".
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct dates on the timeline, when THEY DID NOTHING.
The Ukraine the last 10 or so years?
First baited with "NATO membership" (2007/2008), and "being one of us" (EU)...
Then pwomises made, to "stand firm" and "we'll be there for you"...
Then sold out, and today our leaders are DOING next to NOTHING.*
Errrr...shouldn't our leaders have considered what they were going to do (considering the danger of escalation and Mutually Assured Destruction), before the guns started firing?
What is the pattern here?
2
-
The sunk cost fallacy moment is nearing fast.
It's "1916" on the timeline for Europe/Eurasia...AGAIN.
The collective hive mind in the capital cities in the USA/collective West (Allies 1916 = NATO post-1990) must decide soon whether to "write the Ukraine off" or "invest more". Do not expect a wise answer from those who do not intend to suffer from any effects their own decisions will result in. According to the strategies of the wise, it states "if all else fails, retreat" (see the 36 stratagems of power).
They want their "Versailles moment" as "victory"...AGAIN.
The framers/manipulators in power have already "tried everything else" and failed, but do not expect them to "retreat" and lose their "investments." They will "Pivot to Asia" (Iran, South China Sea, or thereabouts) and sacrifice your daughter (current debates) before they send their own sons off to the wars they have lain the foundations for. That was not different around 1900, than it was around the year 2000.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FREEDOM vs. CONSCRIPTION
I just came here from a video with thousands of angry comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, Germans, Poles, etc. stating "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go", or anger at incompetent politicians. They mirror those made by thousands of comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand how power works. It does not matter what they think. It was what millions of young men already said a century ago in the leadup to their governments' declarations of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me".
JOHN MEARSHEIMER THEORY/SYSTEMIC ANALYSIS
There can only be a few "winners". The rest are the systemic cannon fodder for the gain of those who pass the buck. The "buck passer" is of course the weakest of all minds. Democratic systems of course offer the perfect environments for the opportune to practice eternal "passing the buck": none of these leaders ever did anything wrong (sic.), nobody ever decided anything bad (sic.), nobody ever lied, and everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and lower-tiered finger-pointers...
Here is what they did in both cases (around 1900, and again around the year 2000). Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power in times of peace, by the aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) by men who knew that neither they, nor their own offspring or friends, would ever have to face the consequences of an own unjustifiable standpoint. That means doing to another state/country/alliance what they would never consider acceptable, if done onto them: encircle them, encroach on them, restrict a fair access to the globe's resources.
How do we know this is true?
Because it actually happened, and can be observed.
"I no longer listen to what people say, I just watch what they do. Behavior never lies." - Winston Churchill
Yes, Winnie. What can be observed, and plotted on the map, is not a "lie".
Humdeedum some time passes. By golly, no more personal "freedom", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the muddy trench to enforce Step 1. Guess who "wins"? The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup over the world. Those who hold the GEOGRAPHICALLY opportune advantage of the "higher ground" or the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@michaelwarenycia7588 Thank you for the positive feedback.
The essay is a part of something much bigger, which is how the world is "divided", then "ruled" over.
All it needs, is as explained in the OP, a "position of superior power."
The dividers of Europeans in Washington DC found easy prey amongst the "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling"* European nations, and their "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling" (quote Thomas Jefferson) leaderships.*
Having millions of citizens being tutored into being "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling", means to be easily divided, in the divide and rule/conquer strategy of an outside power, the Washington DC power players. Starting around 1900, they played European leaders "like fiddles", employing mainly "favoratism" (see footnote).
In case you wish to know more about the impact of divide and rule/conquer in the current and past geopolitics and grand strategy, please go to the "Kai--ser Wil.helm_II" video on the "Hi-sto.ry R__oom" educational channel (distorted because such messages are often autoblocked). I wrote a series of essays here, so please select the "latest comments first" by clicking on the three little bars at the top of the comments section. I also left a comment for you there, but please read as far back as you wish, and leave a comment wherever you wish.
Footnote:
Divide and rule is a defined term: "the policy of maintaining control over one's subordinates or opponents [incl. imperialist rivals], by encouraging dissent between them, thereby preventing them from uniting in opposition..." (or similar definitions)
One of the key techniques is the strategy of "chosen ones" (favoratism).
Note, to be clear: there was never any provable intention by Washington DC/London of direct rule over Europe.
But a definition is a definition.
It does not change depending on who makes the argument.
It does not matter what justifications or explanations one gives for the actions or events.
As long as the actions fit the definition of the term favoratism, any attempts at deflection, become "whataboutism."
It does not matter how one skirts the issue, by jumping from one criteria to the next: words have meanings and definitions.
US actions in regards to Europe "around 1900" fit the definition of favoratism/"divide and rule".
It does not matter how one justifies these actions.
The definition is indifferent to anybody's favorite empire.
The definition does not pay heed to anybody's biases, nor cares about any explanations or personal opinions, and it does not matter which authority proclaims these. Furthermore, nobody even has to know that they've become a tool of someone else's divide and rule (google the term "useful idiot/innocent", which are also defined). A definition does not care about whether it concerns a "good empire" or a "bad empire".
Look at the actions/events and then determine whether they fit the definition.
2
-
@michaelwarenycia7588 Yes, I agree about your conclusions.
Yes, specifically Wilson, and that most US Presidents were mere figureheads, there only to fill a post while the real geopolitics/grand strategy decisions were made by "back rooms" (think tanks, strategic study centers, etc.).
Most people are completely unaware that his "14 Points" were largely written by a think tank called The Inquiry (New York based) and that according to the rules of power, Wilson simply took the credit, while others had done the work.
Also. most people don't realize that the "14 Points" was a divide and rule strategy, hidden behind a plethora of words.
Alongside other measures, the Treaty of Versailles was a "divide and rule"-strategy, by outside powers, intent on gaining power by dividing Europeans. This simple statement or theory, can be validated by simply investigating the events around the turn of the previous century, and cutting out the distortions created by "dissention" (note: "sowing dissention" in systems, is a means used in the "divide an rule"-technique).
There is a saying stating that if one cannot explain something in a few minutes, that it is probably false:
At Versailles, Europeans were "divided" with a "ruling".
The divide and rule strategy of and over Europeans, can be explained in three seconds...
Once one cuts out all the bs. created by words, and reduces the policies to the core words, the strategy lurking behind emerges to the foreground.
I wish you and your family and friends, and all citizens of the Ukraine, safety and well-being, and hope this gastly war will soon end, and the leaders get around the table and start talking. Unfortunately, Europeans have no idea how they were once manipulated by the USA and the British Empire (London), and this "divide and rule"-policy carried on after the Cold War right through to today, following the strategies of the "think tanks", in order to keep the USA position as "top dog" in the world.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: WRONG.
It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid ze divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
The Big Lie is the power of the divide and rule/conquer technique, and even the Nazis hid their "Big Lie"-conspiracy theory, behind an even bigger lie: how they intended to play this game until they got into power after their failed coup d'etat.
The "Big Lie" is not a myth but a misrepresentation of the truth.
It is the power of "divide and rule/conquer" which lurks behind every strategy they follow, in order to gain.
No human being has ever come up with a means to overcome this age-old technique of ruling over billions of people, because it is predicated on human nature itself, which is enduring.
No power player wants to become associated with authoritarian, or "colonial" tactics and strategies, or Nazis, so they cannot use it as a political means to attack rivals: it will immediately result in blowback.
The "Big Lie" conspiracy masked the divide and rule technique.
No power player can ever accuse any other power player of using it, since it will immediately backfire: the accusation of using the technique themselves, which in most cases of intent of gain will even apply***. The disguise usually comes in the form of scapegoating or another form of appeal to the emotion of listeners, or addressing and fortifying their already existing biases.
"Scapegoating" = an appeal to lower emotions of potential supporters.
In our divided societies, appealing to these biases might always be that tiny little "weight" that tilts the scale in very tightly run political elections.
Most power players read books on strategy, with the intention of using these strategies for personal gain, not because they wish to benefit you (the individual).
P.S.: The natural knee-jerk reaction to the above-style essays will always be along the lines of "but, but...that is a false equavallence, because...". No, it is not a "false equivalency", but an explanation about how all "systems of gain" work.
(A multitude of examples in the below comments section)
** There is always the urge to defend own favored systems, when one reads perceived "attacks" on these favored systems or own heroes, and the beloved own "-isms", which also reveal standard procedures, meaning the "attacker" soon falls into predetermined pathways to deflect and obfuscate from the core theory...
Footnotes:
**only applies in competitive "intent of gain" systems, *not benevolent forms of reciprocal human interaction which are 100% fair...
*****Canned logic.
It's like debating a broken record player, rofl...
Open ze can, take out the pre-cooked "logic", warm it up a little, and then serve it to the dissenter who dares attack the favorite own system...
canned
Related to canned: Canned laughter, Canned hunting, canned music
canned (kănd)
adj.
1. Preserved and sealed in a can or jar.
2. Informal Recorded or taped for repeated use, as on television or radio: canned laughter.
3. Informal
a. Used repeatedly with little or no change: a canned speech.
b. Totally unoriginal; devoid of individuality: ...
(source: American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The distorters of history lie about everything. Even the Bible they claim to love so much....
When one does wrong, it doesn't matter how one justifies these wrongs.
Or, the true meaning of the Biblical "reap the whirlwind".
In the Bible (Hosea), Israel allied with the devil (Assyria), rather than trust in God, and subsequently lost their worldly "empire" (Hosea).
The biblical wisdom of not allying with evil (Stalin/communism) has been distorted over time, to become a justification for own actions ("reap the whirlwind" = punishment).
A fallacy.
It is only half the story, or "lying by omission".
Because "evil" has even less scrupples than oneself, and therefore allying with evil will mean that one will get screwed over by the devil one has allied with.
Read Hosea.
Even if one is an atheist, these wisdoms are based on thousands of years of human observations.
By own admission, GB allied with the devil (Stalin), and then set off to destroy the German people, rather than letting the two devils (Hitler and Stalin) "slug it out" to mutual destruction on the Eastern Front, while concentrating on the own priorities (Western Desert, Battle of the Atlantic, etc.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Germany was not "bombed to defeat", but was successfully invaded and, ultimately beat by ground forces.
The strategic bombing campaign played a role, but was not even near to being worthwhile "return on the investment".
Had the effort put into building up the strategic air forces instead been invested into proper tanks, APCs or other forms, the war would have been over sooner...
The "recalled fighters" argument.
Firstly, the recalled fighter were single engine day fighters, recalled due the the arrival and threat posed by the USAAF, not Bomber Command.
Secondly, since one should only opposed to the use of soldiers fighting against civilians, and not strategic bombing in general, the efforts the Germans undertook to counter US daylight raids should not flow into this comparison. Therefore, the Germans would have needed to invest the resources they put into defending their cities anyway, even if the RAF had decided to bomb only valid military or strategic targets with token forces. Bear in mind, that the Germans would have needed to protect their industrial centers with a similar effort of AA guns and Flak soldiers, even if ONLY valid targets had ever been chosen.
GB and the Commonwealth which could have redirected a large part on their resources on more pressing worries (for example defeating the submarines with an all out effort in 1942 instead of mid-1943, which would have saved thousands of sailors lives and millions of tons of supplies) Many ships in convoys could have been saved, if the efforts had been focused on escort carriers with Swordfish aircraft.
2
-
@bolivar2153 No, Lancs weren't built in shipyards, but if thousands of merchant ships weren't being sunk by subs, these could've been converted to MACs.
You know, deck it over, no hanger, 5 or 6 Swordfish, off they go...
Instead, ships were sent off, without air cover ...and ended up blub, blub, blub on the sea bed.
Awww well. Too bad.
Too bad Brits got their priorities wrong, sent bombers brrrrrrrrr over Germany to target city centers, where they were also shot down in large numbers.
See what happens if leaders get their priorities wrong?
2
-
@bolivar2153 This is not about what German leaders did.
This is what British leaders got waaaaaay wrong, even without hindsight.
The fact that UBoats dove away at the first sight of an aircraft was well-known in 1940. It didn't matter what aircraft it was, or whether it was dangerous to the sub (at this time, most planes weren't). But, it doesn't matter, because when an aircraft showed up, the subs dove away.
Instead of being able to go 17 or 18 knots, with good allround vision, they were down to 4 or 5, with abysmal vision.
In surfaced condition, a sub had excellent chances of spotting, and sinking ships.
If it was forced to dive away by an aircraft, it lost most of its "vision" (apart from narrow field of vision periscope) and slow, and was practically blind.
Why do you think that the sea lanes around the British were the first to be (reasonably) secured? Why do you think subs were forced to do their "Wolf Pack"-thingy further and ever further from the areas were aircraft operations took place?
2
-
@bolivar2153 Oh I have no trouble seeing the "big picture".
After over-exerting themselves needlessly, instead of going "popcorn and chips" while the commies and Nazis tore each other to shreds, the "smart London lords" decided on "flattening Germany", thereby contributing greatly to their own postwar financial implosion.
London's "commie best fwiends" in Moscow, and the American Century® "best fwiends" said "thank you very much", and took over. The British Empire got ploughed under during the Cold War. Third fiddle, down for the nr. 1 slot just a short lifetime before.
Whoever thought actions don't have consequences?
Of course they do.
Unless one is a "finger pointer".
Always "looking for splinters" (...but, but, but.... the other guy ...boo, hoo). Two thousand year old logic, still as valid as ever...
World history in a single sentence :-D
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ivan Karaschuk Yup.
Good ol' balancing powers game...
GB didn't join "because of Belgium", but because of a policy the lords in London had decided upon loooong before the Kaiser was "building ships", and "wanted colonies".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
A policy called Balance of Power, which practically dictated that GB would always join the weaker side, irrelevant of "right or wrong", and the only way GB could have realistically stayed out of the continental war about to unfold, was to abstain from the selfappointed role of "balancer" for the continent.
It was British leaders making free choice, which had nothing to do with anything any continental leaders did, or didn't do.
The choice of making an entire people an enemy by default, long before they had even done anything to deserve the status of "enemy", had far reaching effects...because it greatly contributed to the decline of Empire itself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@taylorlibby7642
Many people look back at history, and "filter" the information with a current "lens", which distorts reality.
Facts:
Declarations of war back then were official state acts. By declaring war, a state (obviously) makes it clear that it would fight.
Declarations of neutrality were also official state acts.
By declaring neutrality, a state officially declares that it wants no part in a dispute. Omitting an official declaration of neutrality, a state signals that it would fight.
By refusing to stay neutral, after being asked for "a deal", a state clearly states that it would involve itself (this was the case).
The facts are:
1) Russian mobilization ended the diplomatic series of events and started the military reality. With Russian mobilization, diplomacy concerning the Balkan Crisis was finished. Unbeknownst to Berlin, Paris and St. Petersburg had already coluded deciding this during a visit by Poincare in July 1914. No sooner was he on a boat back to Paris, than Russia mobilized. An act of war...
2) After that, France refused neutrality.
By refusing neutrality, like Italy initially did, France stated clearly that it would attack Germany (Plan XVII).
3) GB also refused neutrality.
By refusing neutrality, GB stated clearly that it would join at some later point, irrelevant of whether Belgium was invaded or not. With only 2 enemies, German leaders would have opted for their shelved "Aufmarschplan II" and there would have been no invasion of Belgium.
London declared war in order to "Balance the Power".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Note: neither France nor GB were faced by a real and imminent danger, and could simply have avoided war, by declaring their neutrality.
Neither Italy, France or GB were in a position of danger or threat, and could have chosen/opted out of the war if they had wanted to by declaration of neutrality.
Only Italy chose this option.
In diplomatic terms that meant that by chosing not to stay neutral, these 2 states signaled that they would fight. Note also, that by official treaty obligations, neither France nor GB was obliged to "stand by" Russia, which had chosen to mobilize without having a defense pact with Serbia.
2
-
@Argozification Deflection...
"Belgium" was the child that had to be pushed into water first, in order to "save it" and be a hero...
Omission bias: The tendency to judge harmful actions (commissions) as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful inactions (omissions).
[Wiki]
So, of course "invading Belgium" (Germany) is seen as worse as not saving it (France and Great Britain) by declaring neutrality. Note, a conditional declaration of neutrality, guarding own interests, was an option at all times...
A bias, and it's easy to mislead people.
GB didn't have a defense pact or treaty with Belgium.
British leaders signed the same treaty with Belgium that Dutch leaders signed in 1839.
The keen observer of history notices that the Netherlands didn't declare war in 1914, because (of course) it wasn't a defense pact.
Simple...
Because most people are not biased, and can make up their own minds if the "lying by omission"-side would simply state all the facts.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@svetlanachervonnaya7369 In the realist analysis, it is easy to see how such "political doves" (like Einstein) were opposed and undermined by their own political hawks, and militant Zionists. For 100 years now, settler colonists (Irgun, Lehi, Palmach, etc.) cooperating with the hegemon, carried out such practices of harassment, trying to coerce the original inhabitants to flee so they could occupy the land.
A hundred years ago the British Empire dispatched psychos like Orde Wingate (Special Night Squads) who took pleasure in random shootings, or waterboarding opposition to the British Empire in oil, sending the tortured back to their villages to report about the actions of their oppressors.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The big picture in regards to the potential Anglo-German Alliance.
Let's not forget there is always a big picture.
"The Naval Laws (German: Flottengesetze, "Fleet Laws") were five separate laws passed by the German Empire, in 1898, 1900, 1906, 1908, and 1912."
[wiki]
Note that these had to be approved and passed in the German Reichstag (Berlin parliament), and were therefore not secret.
Without sufficient support, any bill (such as in any democratic process) could have been downvoted.
British "offers" re. "an alliance", or limiting the effects of blockades, or at least the "heartfelt desire" (LOL) of neutrality in case of a European War made to the continent's most powerfull country (alliance):
1898: The Chamberlain/Balfour offers re. "an alliance" (1898), serious efforts to achieve are generally considered (by most historians) as to have pettered out and ending in 1903.
1906: ...
1908: The Hague International Law 1899 and 1907 (an attempt by the international community in London in 1908 to limit the effects of blockades to short range blockades of ports only, which would therefore not affect neutrals or non-belligerents). This was negotiated, agreed upon, signed, but then not ratified by London.
1912: The Haldane Mission (1912). Berlin of course soon found out that Haldane was there to "talk, not negotiate"...
Weird...
Bait and switch....
Make a "sweet offer"...
Dangle a juicy carrot in front of the donkeys, hoping that the "other side" were "lions lead by donkeys"...
Potentially influence members of the German parliament, in the way they would vote on the Naval Bills (the typical "undecided" minister could be potentially "swung"). Or "dragging feet" with regards to negotiations themselves, until the date of the vote, thereby torpedoeing its implementation.
Re. the critical question concerning the obvious correlation between the dates of the German naval bills, and sudden London "friendly offers" re. alliances, talks regarding changes to International Law which would deeply affect London's "grip" (via the Royal Navy) on a continental power, or a neutrality accord with the continent's most powerfull state (and alliance, the Dual Alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary).
Of course "What about the missing 1906?" is a perfectly valid question.
The "naval act" of 1906 was merely an insignificant amendment, without great weight.
"1906 Amendment: Approved 19 May 1906; strength unchanged except for 5 extra large cruisers for the foreign fleet plus 1 extra large cruiser in material reserve, and 48 additional torpedo boats."[from wiki]
Here the lack of any special London interest in the leadup to the German parliament voting on the bill of 1906 is even more conspicious that the cause for London's "offers" is related the German Naval Acts, and that there is a direct connection between these (cause and effect).
But surely the dates are "purely coincidence" or could simply be "correlation", not causal (search for "correlation does not imply causation").
None whatsoever.
London considered itself the "balancer of powers", and had no intention of having her hands tied re. the way they intended to fight in any "next great war", whichever way it unfolded, whoever "started it", or whatever the causes and reasons for such war could be (no hindsight, since of course nobody knew there would be a war in 1914: but "policy" was "policy" regardless).
London had no intention of using the diplomatic means realistically at London's disposal to limit the risk of a war breaking out, by attempting to alleviate the tension between the three powers in question (Germany/France/Russia). It suited the London lords just fine that Germany was wedged in between GB's main historical imperialist rivals for territory and gain (Russia and France), and the lords had no intention of sacrificing the potential situation that all continental powers, engaged in a "total war", would end up "mutually exhausted", thereby strengthening the grip a little nation of 40 million people had on world affairs ("weight"). Of course, if everybody else ended up "totally exhausted" and "totally demoralized", one's own "power"/"leverage" would automatically rise respective to others.
Of course, for politicians who considered the presence of an opposing army in Belgium as a threat, as Casus Belli, or a "pistol pointing at the heart of London", the fact that Russian soldiers were less than 100 miles from Berlin, and of great worry (two-front war) to Berlin, is pure hypocrisy.
Even a simple neutrality accord or non-aggression pact between London and Berlin would have taken a great burden off Berlin's shoulders, since a war (any war threatening the balance of power) would have automatically included GB/Empire.
Berlin was confident of being able to repulse any French/Russian attack (two-front war), but with GB thrown into the deal as the self-proclaimed "balancer of powers", it would have to be a "short war" through Belgium (note: "in strategy" or "an explanation", not to be confused with "apologia" or "sympathy for invading armies" for which there is none on my part).
A pre-war neutrality agreement or non-aggresion pact between London and Berlin would have meant Berlin could return to the pre-1905 situation (no single contingency plan, aka the so-called "Schlieffen Plan" only, but rather multiple war plans adapted to expected circumstances as had existed prior to 1913), comfortable in mastering any potential Russian or French aggression should such aggression ever arise. Lastly, with any form of long-term mutually beneficial treaty/alliance/accord in place and ratified, Germany would also not have needed a bigger navy.
History is not set in stone, and any positive changes along the way would have effected events on the timeline.
2
-
2
-
2
-
The question posed to Asians (mainly Chinese and Indians/citizens within these borders) remains the same as during the era of imperialism.
The obfuscators and dividers will use the same techniques in reasoning as they use in politics: they will "hop around" on criteria, causing dissention in debates on the micro level (society), in the same way the power players "hop around" on entire countries/governments/capital cities/key politicians in geopolitics on the macro level...
The technique of "divide and rule"...
Hop over here, hop over there, whatever standpoint brings the own short-term advantage, because THE POWER has the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of not having to suffer consequences from it's own actions.
The question posed to all Asians remains.
Whether they can see that they are in the same positions they were in 200 and 300 years ago.
The dividers come with "promises" which they mostly don't intend keeping, or offer "treaties" (in which these dividers themselves hold the geographical advantage of distance), make all kinds of excuses why the dividers don't keep their promises, or why the dividers don't suffer the same percentage of harmfull effects in times of crisis/war as the "chosen ones". These promises are very enticing to power players, and offer the prospect of glory and achievement to the side the promises are made to...
Anthony Blinken making some Indians FEEL***(see footnote) very proud with repeated offers of NATO membership, just like previous US admins made such promises to the Ukriane, which no doubt made many Ukrainians FEEL very proud, and then the dividers with the geographical advantage, subsequently citing all kinds of "difficulties" why such "pwomises" then cannot be effected in a short timespan.
Meanwhile, exposing the "Ukraine"/proxy to extreme danger as the feet were dragged and dragged and dragged...
Of course, in the game called divide and rule, it is not the fact THAT it is a ridiculous offer, in view of recent events in the Ukraine exposing the danger of such folly, but rather the fact THAT such an offer is repeated. The fact THAT the offer is on the table, already causes mistrust/dissention amongst ASIAN neighbors.
Of course, if India refuses, the divider (of Asia), Washington DC can simply go to China and "promise Taiwan" to Beijing (signed away) in return for a deal, to surround Russia. The potential for "divide and rule" rests on the side with the geographical advantage, as long as the targets for division do not unite, specifically with a comprehensive Asian security agreement.
The question to Asians remains the same.
What are they going to do to create a SINGLE HEGEMONY (alliance) in East Asia, in order to speak with a united voice, against the POWER of division.
BRICS is not enough.
Any other deal or treaty, or even the "UN's" laws and the "rules based order" cannot stand up to the POWER of divide and rule.
It needs a comprehensive security agreement for all of those in the FRACTURE ZONE 4 (stretching from North Pole, via Japan, Taiwan, through Thailand, the Indian subcontinent, towards the Middle East).
If no comprehensive security agreement is achieved, mutually beneficial for all, then simply wait for history to return ("rhyme")...
Or are Indian leaders like... first they came for Russia, but I did not care because I was not Russian. Then they came for China, but I did not care because I was not Chinese, and even saw an advantage for myself (economy) if China got "carved up" and weakened...
Indian leaders: It'll be great, if WE can CONTROL the WATER flowing into China, from Tibet...such tempting "offers" and promises...
"Around 1900" repeating for Tibet.
Finally though, if everything is burning, divided, in quagmire of revolution and war, and Asia the "new Middle East" (as unfolded after the 1882 British invasion, followed up closely by "Sir Lawrance the divider ofArabs"), finger pointing, and harsh language in the neighboring state, then who will speak up for India when the dividers come for you?
DESIRABLE OUTCOME in any divide and rule system: The dividers will subsequently have the "upper hand/higher ground" (leverage) of POWER for all future negotiations with the resulting "statelets".
The secret towards more Indian "power" lies in the continued "power" of its neighbors, not these neighbors' weakness.
* The appeal to emotion
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interverence at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
§§§footnote
The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alexh479 Kind words in diplomacy are often a result of necessity rather than what the leaders really thought.
Maybe "revenge" is the wrong word, but De Gaule certainly got some gratification/satisfaction out of his later stand re. British entry into the EU.
Under De Gaule, France finaly put on their "big boy boots".
No more begging for Spitfires (Battle of France), and no more begging for help from an uncaring world of "friends across the Atlantic": cheering you on in an hour of need (May 1940)...but little else. No soldiers, no tanks, no battleships, no honor. Just "hopes and prayers", just silent admiration, and a pat on the back...but not much more. Paris would no longer be begging for help, or grovelling for assisistance.
No more having own ships blown up by "best friends" and their "promises", if one is down and out and forced to surrender by a vastly superior enemy.
No more "cordial" amistad.
Under De Gaule, France had own nukes now, and a "new best fwiend" Konrad Adenauer, and leverage.
A marriage made in heaven :-)
Finaly after hundreds of years, and with a different set of "balance of power", it would not be "empires" squaring off, but "new best friends" with a common enemy this time, and if those Russians were going to come storming through the Fulda Gap, it wasn't London or Washington DC which was going to decide whether West Germans were "poor enough" to start a "world war" for.
One might not like De Gaule for all his other faults, and the list is long. But he did get that one thing right. He rid France of the need for "best friends". No more "faraway empires" with a "geographical advantage" going "well, it doesn't really look that bad...for me...so good luck..."
Accompanied by snidy remarks of "who saved you last time duh?", De Gaule did the only right thing: if Paris wasn't on the same level as Washington/London in NATO, it would be out, and an "associated power".
(Google how that unfolded with "France/De Gaulle/Force the Dissuasion")
Paris would decide if Germans were "poor enough" to help.
When it comes to the crunch, or in an hour of need, it's "me first" in the dog-eat-dog world of big boys and their aspirations.
From that point on, Paris would decide, and Paris only, if Germans are "poor enough"...and wipe a sufficiet amount of mother Russia off the map with own nukes, should a single Russian ever set a single foot on a single "poor West German" in their new barrier state.
And De Gaule?
I guess he threw in a bit of that "revenge is a dish best served cold"-attitude. When London was desparate for "markets", Paris denied entry into the EU with a veto. Third in line, after the "old best fwiends of WW2," Washington DC, and Moscow (rescinding the "percentages agreement" for markets in Eastern Europe): France would now also kick London while it was down and out, economically weak and economically failing...
De Gaule: "You want markets for your Vauxhalls? I want markets for my Citroens and my Renaulds..."
(Google: "Paris vetoes UK applications for EU membership 1963 and 1967").
Just like the "600 London lords" of Empire geostrategists.
Loosely quoting Lord Palmerston: "England has no eternal friends and no eternal enemies. Only eternal interests."
And that counts for everyone, also Paris/de Gaule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Unfortunately London did not seem to understand nor follow their own geopolitical "logic", and somehow missed the USA's rise "across the pond".
Or the fact that there might be some long-term grievances resulting from history.
Logic almost dictates that London should have sought to unite Europe, not play their "divide and rule" games with the continental powers.
After WW1, the British Impure descended one rung, and after WW2 they would lose their markets to the USA, their sphere of interest in Central Europe/Baltics/most of the Balkans to Moscow, the nr.1 position as "ruler of the world, the privilege of "Pax Britannica, both to the USA", their self-determined role of "balancer of powers" for the continent, their stated goal of being the "decider of wars" on the continent, and finally their "Empire".
Sad...
2
-
2
-
2
-
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give a weak mind money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And if you lie, steal, and kill, then that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
2
-
2
-
Yes, the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and tales of the "Big Three" for fools who don't understand how the world works...
Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world "you shall not have nuclear weapons!"
https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/british-nuclear-program
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
Irony and sarcasm aside, but that is some weird "special relationship" if you ask me.
A "friend" who does not even want you to have nukes, if he has some himself?
Sounds like a serious control-freak issue...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Reap as you sow counts for all.
The price for a "flattened Germany" would be paid after WW2.
Of course, Germany as a "power", benefited the British Empire.
With this "power" wiped out, Empire became indefensible.
Empire's "fwiends"?
Of course, they had their own agendas.
Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
[Google: The American_Century]
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
[britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
[Google: Operation_Unthinkable 1944]
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
Stalin quickly and instinctively figured out that Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
[Google: Percentages_agreement Churchill and Stalin]
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. Here's Greece. I'll take the rest, including your friends Poland 100%. What are you going to do about it?"
Sow "more than the measure", then "reap" the demise of influence, and your "empire"...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was peace, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces and walks off wit GAIN, when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
>>>
The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
>>>
The people of the Americas, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people into "ingroups". In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the USA's power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS. Eden was a status quo divided by lies and deceit. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the two Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly are two cheeks of the same gold-plated hind which sets out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, is the mirror of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets and becomes successful it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances.
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
It's divide-and-rule today, and it was divide-and-rule 20 years ago, it was divide-and-rule 50 years ago, it was the same strategy 100 years ago, and 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the locals were too weak/divided to unite.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The destruction of German cities and, collective punishment (with the subsequent RETROSPECTIVE justification from a 1945 POV) was one of the most ridiculous and counter productive exercises in warfare ever.
To illustrate why I say this, consider this objective chain of events.
Episode 1: The Area Bombing Directive, and OFFICIAL British government POLICY
According to the Area Bombing Directives of February 1942 "...entire cities were to be targeted..." (carpet bombing of city centers, hidden behind euphemisms like "de-housing" or "workforce"). For the next three years, this would be the policy followed by Bomber Command, and a majority (not all) raids were carried out according to this principle.
How effective was this to reduce the pressures of Allied soldiers fighting on the front lines? How effective was this to aid the ground forces, the ONLY forces which have the ability to end wars?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive
Episode 2 Around two years later.
One of the most feared German weapons of WW2 was the Tiger tank, built at the Henschell plant in Kassel. Kassel was "blasted as a whole" in October 1943. The entire city center was destroyed and about 10,000 "enemy" women and kids were burned to a cinder. According to the Area Bombing advocates, it was "a huge success".
Of course, according to the Area Bombing policy, the well-known heavy industrial plant, Henschell wasn't the target of this raid. An indirect result of the raid was that Tiger production rose from 1943 (650 built) to 1944 (around 1000 Tiger I and II).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Kassel_in_World_War_II
Episode 3 The Battle of Hochwald Gap
The few days following the 26th February 1945 were some of the blackest day in the history of the Canadian military. In the space of a few days, more than 5300 Canadians were killed or badly wounded. A large measure of these heavy casualties at such a late date, could still be attributed to a few hundred tanks (incl. the dreaded Tiger).
http://civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com/10742/the-battle-of-hochwald-gap-one-of-the-largest-armor-engagements-you-probably-have-never-heard-of
Episode 4 Today
Here's the million dollar question.
Would the German side have been able to to the same in February 1945, had the 100 Tiger tanks been destroyed in the October 1943 attack on Kassel? Would the German tankers have been able to kill or wound 5300 Canadians, if they had been sitting on bicycles, armed with old rifles ? (because the heavy industry producing modern tanks had been destroyed in 1943/44)
I assume the Allied tankies in in Normandy, and in a hundred other battles, also weren't amused facing the Tiger (if if it only plaed a minor part in the west)....
Nor were all those other young Allied soldiers, who were blown to bits on the Eastern Front battlefields by weapons which could have been destroyed in the factories if the right decisions had been made in 1942.
Despite bombing the sh*t out of city centers (or,..maybe BECAUSE of bombing city centers?), German armament production rose dramatically until the final quarter of 1944.
http://ww2-weapons.com/german-arms-production/
My personal conclusion?
Why are there are still people who revere men like Portal and Harris as "far sighted"?
Their decisions indirectly led to the needless deaths of scores of OWN ground forces...
2
-
2
-
Sad reality, if you live in the USA/collective West.
Your "deceiving class" does not care what you think, and they never have.
Ever since "Remember the Alamo!!" which is an APPEAL TO EMOTION (event: a bunch of slave-loving settlers, trying to get away from rules/regulations), and "Remember the Maine!!" (imperialist warhawks vying for expansion, looking for fools to do the dying), the majority of your fellow citizens WILL be deceived into their trenches...AGAIN. And again, the loudest screamers for war have virtual "trenches" in their mommy's basements, safely tucked away behind keyboards. A truism of human nature, despite the Bible warning "do not judge" (until you have ALL the information...ALL. OF. IT.)
Sad reality of the liars and deceivers? They are so confident in their lying and deception, that they are using the same "WMDs"-narrative that has already been proven a big lie, 25 years after framing it for a war of choice against Iraq.
"7 countries in 5 years"
Let no-one deceive into thinking "they" (other side) started it, in the "Who started it?"-blame game, AGAIN...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
PART 2
Regarding "the bully", and human nature, there is a direct connection between how individuals and states act and react: obviously, since states are made up of individuals with an intent of gain motive. One can therefore draw comparissons between the micro level of individuals or small scale systems (society and companies), and the macro level of corporations, big power interests, and therefore states and empires.
They all act, and react in similar ways, and the connecting link is strategy.
Dr. Gary Namie conducted an exhaustive series of micro level studies to conclude that there are four categories of toxic bullies in society and the workplace, based on the carefull observation and close encounters with other human beings. The four types of bullies are the Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper.
Screaming Mimi is the fist-wielding screamer who chooses a public setting in order to vociferously point fingers in your face...
Two-Headed Snake is the Jekyll and Hyde back-stabber, who steals the credit for the hard work of others. They smile and are 100% in control of body language with studied "backpats" and superficial compliments, yet behind the back spread lies, rumor, innuendo in order to damage reputations of adversaries...
The Constant Critic is another one of the "finger pointing"-variety of of "friends", who's not above falsifying information, or burning documents, to pin “mistakes” on others...
The Gatekeepers withhold resources others need to succeed, jealously guarding own privileges against other systems trying to make it...
Our history books are full of warnings against the "screaming Mimi" variety, characterized by images of a fist-wielding screaming Hitler, yet when it comes to other bully tactics, the inhabitants of various systems of gain become remarkably acquiescent, apologetic, and complacent about observed, or unobserved actions of bullying. Bullying is of course nothing else but a strategy, and because the other three bully types are easily disguised, the overwhelming number of citizens of western style democracies go to bed each night, secure in the knowledge that they live in superior systems (democracy/capitalism). Both democracy and capitalism are designed to overpower and conquer other systems, but the means they use are more difficult to spot.
Not for the first time in history, the opportunity to sign a mutually agreeable comprehensive European security agreement was bypassed, to the mutual detriment of all European systems: "President Dmitry Medvedev presented the initial proposal for a revision of the European security system during his visit to Berlin in June 2008. The proposal included the signature of a legally binding treaty (involving all states and organisations active in Europe). The Russian proposal has been subsequently repeated on many occasions, including by the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov in his address to the UN General Assembly in September 2008 ... During World Policy Conference in Evian, France on 8 October, the Russian president explained the original idea more precisely by presenting the five principles on which the new system should be based. The key element of Medvedev’s plan remains the postulate of equal security for all, which, if implemented, would mean that no actions that might be perceived as threatening the security of others would be allowed ..." CES Commentary, Center for Eastern Studies, 16.10.2008
Empires come in 4 toxic flavors: The Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper.
We as individuals are constantly warned about the first, but we should watch out for what we're not being told: keep a lookout for the last three.
To "avoid avoiding war" by the strategy of "pushing until something snaps" is one characteristic.
Bullies also manipulate millions of people, via mostly loyal squires or henchmen.
Re. the question why all the observed reality is allowed to happen, is based on human nature, and the nature of our prefered systems of capitalism/democracy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Chamberlain went to Munich, and with the formulation "to resolve that our nations never to go to war again" he made Hitler a historical offer.
Of course that was a diplomatic feeler and a suggestion for a foundation for further negotiations of "favored status".
To take over the role of main continental "balancing power" from France.
When Hitler invaded Rest-Czechoslovakia, in March 1939, that British offer was off the table. Understandable. Because there is a saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
After trying to fool the world with the "just uniting Germans"-lie, Hitler revealed his true plans. Czechs were not Germans.
With Munich, a "wrong" of Versailles had been righted, and Hitler ignored that.
He was heading for the Heartland.
For he "who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;who rules the World-Island commands the world."
(Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 150)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
From there, the economic overpowering, and/or military invasion, and/or political dislocation the British Empire step by step, was possible.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
US Congressperson Dan Crenshaw (note his military background, therefore knowledge about strategies) recently stated re. the concept of "rather letting them fight over there" (a reference to the strategy of "the proxy"), after a 40 billion aid package to the Ukraine: “Yeah, because investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea. You should feel the same.” (in a "shame game" with Republicans via Twitter who voted against the aid package).
Yup.
A "great idea" (sic.) to "invest" in the blood of a 3rd party fighting in a war which would have been easy to avoid, and earn some "donations" along the way. What's there not to like?
One might think that this is "anecdotal", but as Napoleon said only the coward won't tell you what he thinks in your face. And there are a ton of cowards in the field of politics.
One might think whatever one wants about Dan Crenshaw, but at least he is honest.
If anybody ends up in a muddy trench, it's not his fault.
Of course, its never the fault of the "system" he's in called "world alpha" either, since it's a free world, and if you're stupid enough to end up in the "muddy trench" fighting so that men like him (or, his "buddies" in "the system") can rake in obscene profits in the rackets they will always vote against avoiding, it's not his issue.
He'll be in church on Sundays, praying the loudest, and he'll be on twitter on Monday, making fun of those not smart enough.
I assume, he'll have his "flock" of supporters, irrelevant of what he utters.
2
-
A lot has been written about what Lord Balfour meant with "the child".
Arthur Balfour's opinion about Wilson, Lloyd George, and Clemenceau: "These three, all powerful, all ignorant men, sitting there and carving up continents, with only a child to lead them."
"Who was the 'child'?" is however the wrong question: the question should be "What is the 'child' in IR/politics?"
Maybe he meant himself. The three most powerful men in the London's cabinet were Lloyd George, Lord Balfour, and Lord Milner, and they threw their weight behind the Balfour Declaration.
Two other lords were overruled in this process. One was Lord Curzon, who incidentally, also drew the Curzon line through Eastern Europe, and was also overruled by circumstances which was localized wars. These started almost as soon as WW1 ended, and to fill up the power vacuum which appeared when German/Austria-Hungarian hegemony was broken down de jure due to rescinding Brest-Litovsk, and the Central Powers' soldiers were forced to retreat, which resulted in a de facto power vacuum immediately filled up by? You guessed right: more wars to "end wars". Had the Curzon Line been abided by, or used as a starting point for further bottom-up "line drawing" by plebiscite or referenda to finalize the borders between new states, the following WW2 might even have been avoided.
Two unfortunate precedents in history created by random line-drawing, at the same time.
One in Eastern Europe.
One in the Middle East (nonmenclature at the time).
"The child" is a character trait, of the easily deceived and manipulated. Like a "child" who wants something, for example an ice-cream, starts whining and is then pacified and distracted with some or other toy. This "child" could be anybody who is easily mislead and manipulated into accepting something which is of lower value to the own side, in a trade-off which is of higher value to the negotiator. The divide-and-rule strategy of power is already all over that book of systems/strategies called The Bible.
"...children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness." Ephesians, The Epistle of Paul, 4:14.
The main reason you don't see the political policy of DIVIDE-AND-RULE called by what it is called today, on every other page of the New Testament (timestamp: Roman occupation of the Levant), is because no name existed for it yet except within the centers of power by those carrying it out: Divide et Impera. To "rule" by "division." The "locals" were clueless as to what they were witnessing, or why events unfolded the way they did, and concluded that it was all just "natural human nature".
Two thousand years ago, the scribes simply documented what they were witnessing, something they simply could not name or recognize yet.
------------------------------------------------------------
Most of our history is a collective of ideas, reached by "common consensus".
"Common consensus" is a cognitive bias, because most individuals simply assume that conclusions once drawn by experts in the field of historical studies are valid, because a common consensus once reached is always valid.
That line of thinking, is however fallacious.
The most common cognitive biases which have slipped into the "history" known as popular- or narrative history, or have even reached the status as "beyond question" because too many believe it is "true", are:
- Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the majority, or appeal to the masses, or the argument from consensus in which the "consensus" has a HOME BASE advantage)
- Genetic fallacy (discounting a theory that sounds unnatural based on its source, creating the "I need more evidence"-crowd who ALWAYS "need more evidence" regardless of any amount of evidence already provided, and who can simply not see where they fit into the DIVIDE ET IMPERA-setup of the planet)
- Ipse dixit (aka "because I said so myself" it must be true)
- Cherry picking data (thereby suppressing all evidence which contradicts the own convictions, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence)
- Group attribution error (assuming that the individual represents entire groups with similar attributes like culture, language, ethnicity, etc.)
- Invincible ignorance fallacy (aka pig-headedness, is a deductive fallacy of circularity by ignoring any evidence given and related to the concept of "dogma")
- Hostile attribution bias (is the tendency to interpret others' behaviors as having hostile intent, even when the behavior is ambiguous or benign. For example, an empire with high levels of hostile attribution bias may interpret intentions to "balance powers" as agreed upon by common consensus, or as the "pre-selected others/outgroup (with finger pointing) trying to rule the world"-narrative)
- Implicit stereotype (pre-reflective attribution of particular qualities of out group members)
- Reactive devaluation (occurs when a proposal is devalued if it originates from an antagonist, resulting in "arguing for the sake of arguing")
- Correlation does not imply causation (events which occur concurrently or in sequence, are not necessarily the result of each other)
- Dysrationalia (fill up the "mindware gap" with fallacious reasoning or cognitive biases, and even intelligent people end up as "losers")
- Madman theory ("play" crazy as a scare tactic. Wilhelm II or Hitler were most likely not more sociopathic and/or psychopathic than many or our own leaders in positions of power, but simply "played" the role as deterrence)
- Emotive conjugation (a rhetorical technique used to create an intrinsic bias towards or against a piece of information. Bias is created by using the emotional connotation of a word to prime a response from the audience by creating a loaded statement. Examples are the use of "freedom fighter" for a favoured cause, and "terrorist" for a cause opposing the own)
Finally, the Law of Triviality (Northcote Parkinson, 1957) states that people within an ingroup often give disproportionate weight to trivial issues (like whether "Hitler had one ball"), meaning that time is wasted on trivialities which distracts from what is really important, or indicative. When you waste time on trivialities ... "you become what you give your attention to." (to quote Epictetus)
The above is all partially copied from wiki, then edited, so a shoutout to the original editors and authors.
Fallacies in reasoning are a filter for the brain, which uses fallacies to sort out data which make individuals feel uncomfortable.
They are the arguments which form the basis for the arguments created by weak minds, often too lazy or too corrupt to explore alternatives to a "nice sounding story" they are used to.
The divide-and-rule strategy is a perfect smokescreen, resulting in what could be termed the "second-order idiot plot" of bumbling buffoons (Damon Knight, 1956). By attributing all events as the effects of our own bumbling fools, or finger pointing at the other side, the strategy remains hidden from view. Chamberlain is a good example of the so-called "bumbling buffoon" who most likely knew that his actions in 1938 and 1939 kept the historical divide and rule strategy employed by London a secret, meaning that he willingly sacrificed his reputation as the final fling to save the peace, regardless of how small the chances of success. Whatever he did in 1938 though, did NOT matter. Because just like "if Churchill was in charge we would have avoided war by threatening or declaring preventive war" is a fallacy, because a British PM does NOT decide on whether there would be war on the continent or not, but by whether the collective veto Lords considered the continental balance of power in danger (aka the "avoid the single hegemony taking shape" aka "DIVIDE everybody else aka DIVIDE ET IMPERA).
Until British historians acknowledge the importance of this fundamental axiom of the lords geopolitical stance regarding the continent, and the planet for that matter, there will not be a valid uncontroversial "historical narrative" either.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In 1970, German Chancellor Willy Brandt went to Warsaw and made his famous "Kniefall", asking for forgiveness for the crimes against humanity of a previous generation of Germans...
"The Briggs' Plan was a military plan devised by British general Sir Harold Briggs shortly after his appointment in 1950 as Director of Operations during the Malayan Emergency (1948-1960). The plan aimed to defeat the Malayan National Liberation Army by cutting them off from their sources of support amongst the rural population.[1]
To achieve this a large programme of forced resettlement of Malayan peasantry was undertaken, under which about 500,000 people (roughly ten percent of Malaya's population) were forcibly transferred from their land and moved to newly-constructed settlements known as "New villages".[2] During the Emergency there were over 400 of these settlements. Furthermore, 10,000 Malaysian Chinese suspected of being communist sympathisers were deported to the People's Republic of China in 1949.[3]
The Orang Asli were also targeted for forced relocation by the Briggs' Plan because the British believing that they were supporting the communists.
Many of the practices necessary for the Briggs' Plan were prohibited by the Geneva Conventions and customary international law which stated that the destruction of property must not happen unless rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.[5]"
Note here. This happened during times of peace, not war.
A pathetic "empire" burning down entire regions, looting, deporting innocent people, setting up concentration camps and calling them "happy villages"...
Tell me dear.
Where do you live?
Have any of your leaders ever asked for forgiveness for crimes carried out by a previous generation?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The distorters of history lie about everything. Even the Bible they claim to love so much....
When one does wrong, it doesn't matter how one justifies these wrongs.
Or, the true meaning of the Biblical "reap the whirlwind".
In the Bible (Hosea), Israel allied with the devil (Assyria), rather than trust in God, and subsequently lost their worldly "empire" (Hosea).
The biblical wisdom of not allying with evil (Stalin/communism) has been distorted over time, to become a justification for own actions ("reap the whirlwind" = punishment).
A fallacy.
It is only half the story, or "lying by omission".
Because "evil" has even less scrupples than oneself, and therefore allying with evil will mean that one will get screwed over by the devil one has allied with.
Read Hosea.
Even if one is an atheist, these wisdoms are based on thousands of years of human observations.
By own admission, GB allied with the devil (Stalin), and then set off to destroy the German people, rather than letting the two devils (Hitler and Stalin) "slug it out" to mutual destruction on the Eastern Front, while concentrating on the own priorities (Western Desert, Battle of the Atlantic, etc.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
The idea that people have that their own countries are "fighting for the weak and powerless" is a misconception.
States and empires fight for their own benefit, and there is always a "price tag" for "help".
States and empires don't "fight to help weak countries/people".
In case there is a power imbalance: The grand strategy is called "the proxy".
The "big brother" is the benefactor.
The "little brother" is always in danger of becoming a proxy, involuntarily sacrificed for the gain of "the big brother".
Unless the "big brother" and the "little brother" are in the same boat by means of a binding treaty, there is no equality in outcome.
Unless the "brothers in arms" are exposed to the same or similar level of danger and are facing the same or similar potential ill-effects due to own actions/inactions, then it is an unequal relationship. Unless all parties suffer similar percentages of financial and human losses, and risk a similar percentage of destruction to their property and territory, then it is in effect "a proxy" which has been set up for the fall.
The ones losing most are always the "proxies" of course (historical analysis, with multiple examples).
In politics and big business, nobody does anything for free.
How one writes history is more a matter of framing: for example the widespread misconception of "good empires on the right side of history, fighting for the little guy" (aka "the poor people"-argument): notice just how...ahem..."coincidentally" these "poor people" just happen to live in regions of the planet with raw materials/strategic value. Empires are suspiciously very keen on "fighting for democracy/freedom" or "poor people" when these battles take place in areas of the planet benefitting own gain in some or other form, or if it is beneficial to the own rise in power.
In strategy, the so-called "fighting for the little guy/democracy/freedom" is nothing else than "creating a proxy" or "proxy wars" for own gain.
It's the same thing, simply using different words or "putting a spin" on words by changing the perspective, thereby making it more palatable and advantangeous to the own cause, which is own gain.
2
-
The decision by British to "area bomb" entire cities to the ground reminds me of a guy smashing the air conditioning and then wondering "why is it suddenly so hot in here"....
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@heinzriemann3213 Yup.
Tools of empires.
The geopolitical implications of trying to "cordon off" rivals are strikingly similar...
In the late-19th Century, France fought back against the German attempts to isolate it politically, by cordoning off Germany and the Central Powers with a ring of alliance partners.
France, in the west, a hostile Russia (as the "dissed girlfriend") in the east.
GB's RN in the position to cut off the north, in case of war. That only left a small corridor of access either through Serbia, or Austria-Hungary's ports in the Adriatic (threatened by British hegemony over Greece).
Today, we see a similar strategy concerning China, or "Chy-naaah", as some say (LOL).
Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines controlling sea access to the east. Trump playing it nice with Putin/Russia at the time, apparently didn't work out. Shame. Of course, Russia would have cut off the north-west/north-east.
A more hostile India, will cover the south-west sector...almost there.
That only leaves a narrow corridor of access to the south, in the South China Sea. The Sprattly Islands...
History might not always be 100% the same, but it certainly rhymes.
Let's see if the effects are going to be the same...
The failing American Century is looking for "useful tools" to cordon off its rising rival. Just like GB did 100 years ago when they were "the alpha". Picking up "tools" when it suited them, and dumping "tools" when they had served their purpose.
Back then "the game" was played with battleships.
Today, with nukes.
Good thing for "empires" is that most humans are emotionally steered. Unable to reason, or use logic to realize where they fit into the big picture.
2
-
2
-
@neutralitystudies It is actually not so difficult to understand why and how events unfold.
Throughout history, those powers with a geographical advantage simply had to "avoid, avoiding war", and employ a series of strategies to claim innocence.
1) drag feet/delay action
2) push, and push, until something snaps on the other side
How our leaders avoid "avoiding war", and then fabricate a racket...in three easy steps.
Step 1:
Engineer a situation, or take on a standpoint one would never accept as "acceptable", if placed in the same situation oneself, and refuse to budge. Ignore all warnings.
Step 2:
Watch on as the situation deteriorates.
Find a few "good fwiends", who "see things the same way", and refuse to budge.
Send around a few good guys, who will try their best...
Ignore all further warnings.
As "crisis" turns to gloom, do as little as you can possibly get away with.
Especially, don't sign anything worded in such a way that it would actually avoid war.
Step 3:
When the guns start firing: Here comes the most important step. Do as the Bible says (lol) and point the finger everywhere else, and wash own hands in innocence (using the easy "Pontius Pilate"-way out).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
To address the many comments here about the ability of those under the systemic control of the USA/collective West (incl. think tanks) to ignore reality like the ongoing, obvious attempt at "ethnic cleansing VIA terror aka genocide." It's a subsection of divide-and-rule, by the CONTROLLING powers who want something: gain.
Apart = separate = divide.
Apartheid = divide and rule
Critical question: how does a minority CONTROL a majority? How does a faraway empire, CONTROL a large group of people? Correct answer, call "them" (outgroup) a "potential tyranny" and enslave them step-by-step.
Arabian Peninsula = Between the sea and the sea (Mediterranean/Indian Oceans) and should have included ALL peoples who lived here. The "barriers" were in the brain, to the detriment of all when the "dividers" came. The lines in the sands were historically drawn by "empires" to achieve gain, and are currently USED by "empires" to perpetuate gain for the own systems.
Historically, who gained from DIVISION?
Who would have gained from a fair UNITY on the Arabian Peninsula, when the faraway "empires" came for them after WW1? Correct answer: the people who lived there.
After WW1 the British- and French empires used the divide-and-rule technique, to carve up the Arabian Penisula and subvert all the people living here. The lines were drawn to carve up the oild resources, to AVOID one power from gaining too much of the POWER which these reserves would afford them.
The "divide-and-rule strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it creates ingroups of "empire fans" who gain and can become very very rich, even as millions of others suffer.
Look over the horizon. Eurasia. When carrying out a geopolitical analysis, do not make the same mistakes as Africa's black tribes, and the Boers, and Native Americans, and Incas and Aztecs, and the Chinese rulers during their "Century of Humiliation", and many many more all over the world, who all failed to look past the limited horizons open to them. YOUR "horizons" are given to you by the texts in your own history books, which intend to LIMIT your horizon, not open it.
Treaty of Versailles = Divide and rule of and over neighbours (Europe/Eurasia), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbours whom the dividers wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weakened local systems who "lost the war" and which they wished to create top down). After WW! European leaders who did not understand the logic of Chesterton's fence, and destroyed what they did not understand (European balance of Power, as per Concert of Europe, 1815). Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such systemic "line drawing" agreements/accords?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Chesterton%27s_fence
Zoom into the present...
Abrahamic Accords = Divide and rule of and over direct neighbours (Arabian Penisula), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbours whom they wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weaker local systems). Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such agreements/accords? The leaders of West Asia are all "divided loyalties" as long as they bow down to outside interests and value their own vested interests before the interests of the entire region (oil resources which had been turned into US/EU/Swiss assets for a few over the span of 50 years, or the "my precious borders"-mentality of ideologues, past the well-being of the majority of the own peoples).
One of the biggest misconceptions of history is the ability of the ideologically/systemically indoctrinated to view themselves as unique, whereas as a general rule their own histories rhyme with other historical events, based on the systemic analysis. The will to keep the own systems APART from their neighbours (divided by ideology and rulings) always backfires, when one is no longer "King of the Mountain" (strategy of power). By the time everything implodes, the rulers/dividers are long gone, having previously brought their own wealth and families to safe havens.
2
-
How Washington DC/US Internationalism/The American Century (all morphed into the current PNAC and a variety of think tanks today) intended to use "divide and conquer/rule"-strategies on "old Europe" starting around the turn of the century (around 1900).
Wilson's role in all of this is not clear, since it was never written down. According to logic and reasoning (based on what is known), Wilson was either not fully aware, or fully informed re. the above means by US think tanks to achieve global hegemony.
Or "a plan of sorts", because it would rely on "natural" European division.
Wilson's "14 Point Speech" was of course not composed solely by Wilson himself. It was based on the work of a new York-based think tank/interest group called the Inquiry. While this produced remarkably fair solutions for many regions of the world (see for example the creation of Armenia and Kurdistan based solely on ethnicity), re. the vital Central Europe it was simply a "catalogue of historical excuses" which the 150 "experts" (LOL) had come up with and which would grant the "associated European winners" of WW1 a draft to ignore wise biblical advice:
- do onto others as one wishes for oneself (aka "self-determination")
- put yourself in the shoes of others (note, the Bible doesn't say that one has to like those in which shoes one is invited to step into)
These are simple unbiased universal priciples.
Clear and easy to understand to most people, since they form the basis of many religions (as moral guidelines for both the religious, as well as the growing number of atheists/agnostics, for example The Golden Rule) and wise age-old advice to stop the "sowing" of unprincipled deeds which all have to be "reaped" later on...
If the 14 Points were not universally valid principles, then what were they?
Correct answer: a Washington DC strategy of "divide" (Europeans) and "rule" (the world).
From wiki: "Lippmann's draft territorial points were a direct response to the secret treaties of the European Allies, which Lippmann had been shown by Secretary of War Newton D. Baker.[7] Lippmann's task, according to House, was "to take the secret treaties, analyze the parts which were tolerable, and separate them from those which were regarded as intolerable, and then develop a position which conceded as much to the Allies as it could, but took away the poison.... It was all keyed upon the secret treaties."[7]
Sources are of course, always at the bottom of that wiki page.
The above is of course and example of favoratism (a tactic of "divide and rule"), and not a "universal principle".
If they had been universal principles, then not only would the London Treaty of 1915 (regarding the secret carving up of Austria-Hungary, made to draw Italy into WW1) have been declared null and void, but also all other secret scheming and backdoor deals, like Sykes-Picot.
So.
They were not universal principles.
The "14 points" were a transparent Washington DC attempt at "division", and the vain European "winners" fell for it.
Wilson intention was clearly to arm-wrestle "the winners" into agreeing to an international organisation which would hopefully make all future wars impossible, or limit their scope to "limited/local wars". Also of course to lobby with all his power (faltering, since already in a weak a state of health) to convince his fellow Americans on all levels of society, that this was the right thing to do. Either that, or convince them to enter into a wise peace, which would settle long-standing European differences based on "principles" of sorts.
The end effect of such naivity on Wilson's part was that he achieved neither goal: Neither the "international organisation/round table" or "concert" of powers, nor a wise peace.
He had underestimated both the stupidity of European leaders stuck in their old ways, and his own population and their representitive form of government aka "democracy" (Senate of course at the time "around 1900" until 1913 was not directly elected yet, but was a "peer-controlled group" of insiders).
In case he did understand fully what was behind the 14 Points, he did not say.
Of course, every US POTUS has the obligation to put US interests first. These included breaking away from a European dominated world, as well as find markets for own steadily growing US industries.
Simple lesson of history.
Be principled.
If not, get "divided" and "ruled over"...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please :-)
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels, and any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain, simply needed to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. Once "divided", there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Some examples regarding the theory in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors would offer a foothold in Europe.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have such consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement after 1895, amongst other less "valuable" suitors, was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below). The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises made"...lol
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...lol.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics sterted with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947. It is alive and well. It has surrounded every aspect of power politics on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Same with the funding of opposing European leaders and states (for example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s).
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else, while "eating popcorn and chips"...
2
-
2
-
2
-
WW1 FOR DUMMIES
Episode 1: 1870 - 1890
Germany: Can we be friends? I mean, look at nasty Rusky over there, trying to steal India from you. And don't even get me started with those Frenchies....Napoleon, ha, ha, ha...
London: uhm...err...well...don't mind us, we're just splendidly isolated over here. Peacefully minding our own business. [grins] Why don't you build some ships? Here's some plans, ships, and technology....
Germany: Gee, great, thanks. Shall we discuss becoming real friends? You know, like allies?
London: unm...err..well...ahm...not today, I'm not feeling well...next week?
Germany: oh ok
Episode 2: 1890-1910
Germany: So, can we be friends now?
London: uhm..errm...I've got quite a schedule. Bills, letters...you know [smiles]
Germany: oh well, I'm off to the sun then...
London: no
Germany: what?
London: Errr...sun is dangerous. Sun burn, you know...
Germany: oh, and you?
London: well, that's something else
Germany: Really? Who decided this?
London: Uhm...me and my friends?
Germany: Friends? What friends?
London: Russia, France, Japan, Italy, the USA...
Germany:
Episode 3: 1914
Germany: What a mess.
London: Well...just don't go through Belgium.
Germany: OK, so if we go through Belgium, it means war?
London: yes
Germany: OK, so if we dont go through Belgium it means you'll stay neutral...
London: no
Germany: What? If we don't go through Belgium, it also means war?
London:
Germany: Has anybody ever called you a psycho?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What connects the topic of this video, as "compartmentalized history", with the bigger overall European "picture"?
It is "divide and rule" as THE "systems/strategies" tier of things...
Exemplary: When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think*** today.
Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer of and over continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers.
These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology).
Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.
The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group. As for Wilson, was he really that naive to think that the large and prominent forces of isolationism would not prevail, and lead to the USA/Washington DC not joining any collectivised system of security for the entire planet?
Was there really no "Plan B" in Washington DC?
Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired. The "oh so fine" British Lordships thought they could play divide and rule/conquer games with the world, and in the end British citizens lost bigtime, as their own Lordships "...ran off with all the f%cking money..." (quote = George Carlin/ reality = tax havens). Note that in an exchange based on observations (realism) and definitions, that these cannot be "countered" by an opinion or a personal standpoint.
The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely.
No, this is not a "yet another conspiracy theory," but elaborated and provided with sufficient evidence, and inductive/deductive reasoning on the other channel/video.
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
**As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the *systems/strategies tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@marksuave25 OK, then we are in agreement.
It costs us billions each year, which is divided on all contributors.
The combined damage by insurance fraud is staggering, and everybody who engages in it isn't a "hero".
To address your second comment:
We must change the way we look at this.
This is a conversation I had with an uncle of mine a while back (paraphrased, because I don't remember the exact words...
Uncle: "Remember that damage to my roof due to aging? I declared that as storm damage after last week's storm and got a 3000 dollars....haha haha....they didn't even check, because there were so many claims flooding them."
Me: "Would you also steal 50 cents from me, if I didn't look?"
Uncle [shocked]: " No of course not, why do you ask?"
Me: "Well, you just did. Every time somebody somewhere does that, premiums go up. Somebody ends up paying."
Uncle: "....but, but...it's my money, I paid for 30 years and never got anything out of it..."
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. Yes, millions of people see nothing wrong with their little scheme, and even proudly brag about it amongst friends and relatives.
Until most people see this as nothing else but "theft", the attitudes won't change and the premiums will go up.
If a friend's brags to you about "doing in that greedy insurance company" and "getting some back" of all he has paid, maybe remind him that "insurance" shouldn't be confused with a "savings account" from which one can make a withdrawal after paying in for a few years.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tonight we learn how the Brits lost their Empire...
So Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
OPERATION UNTHINKABLE STATUS: BURIED
GB STATUS: BOMBED INTO TOTAL FINANCIAL BANKRUPTCY
BRITISH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STATUS: SUPERSEDED
PAX BRITANNICA STATUS: CANCELLED
EMPIRE STATUS: GAME OVER
2
-
2
-
2
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit. The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They morphed strong monarchies ("princes") into weak democracies ("mercenaries"), then used entire regions as tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up to Versailles. The USA could afford to wait.
Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
2
-
2
-
Asking the wrong questions on a limited scope and timeline will not reveal the divide-and-rule technique.
After 1945, the empire set off on the "G-G Line" from Germany to Greece, during the First Cold War after declaring yet another war which would affect the entire world ("cold" war/Truman Doctrine/declared in 1947).
THE WONDERFUL 1990's, FILLED WITH PROMISE
It advanced onto the "B-B Line" from the Baltics to the Black Sea (see footnote), after the "peace" was declared to the plebs after the 1990s, and a bright new future promised to all the children of history, believers in the promises made of "peace dividends for all". Fools are those who believe a leopard can change its spots. The reality is that "a leopard can't change its spots", and is the colloquial way to explain the idea that most people never change their true nature, and in the big picture/macro-level, empires will ever change their innate nature. A hegemony once "on top" will EVER step down and share "peace dividends" equally for all...
The Atlanticists' mentality strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
How long do you think it will take for the empire, wriggling and writhing about ("divide-and-rule"), hopping over here and there ("pivoting") before they reach the "A-A Line"?
The goals of the "dividers" who wield the power, is simply that their politics is the continuation of war by other means...
‐-----------
The "B-B Line".
When people start thinking in terms of dichotomies like winning/losing, left/right wing, us/them, right/wrong, unity/division, they are already all "losers."
Think in terms of a desirable outcome. If not, lose.
Outsiders fabricate the "crescent of crises" around your heartland.
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
If outsiders come from outside and start drawing lines on the map, through your homelands without asking the people who live there.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite in order to play their own cards. They allow outsiders to play the cards FOR them. You will lose if outsiders consider you a game of cards, and draw lines right though you and your neighbors.
Then they push little minions, ahead of the hegemonic power...
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS. Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Rome. London. Washington DC.
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
POWER. DOESN'T. CARE.
Maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are trapped in a "divide and rule world", and it has been all about PROFITS and CONTROL over the people.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region. In other word, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The powerful have used the strategy of divide-and-rule for thousands of years to drive a wedge between peoples.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe noted back then: "Divide and rule, calls the politician; unite and lead, is the slogan of the wise."
Some politicians and rulers may do this innocently and without thinking, but most know exactly what they are doing with their divisive tongues and their line-drawing divisions. It is their most successful technique that allows them to rule over us by preventing greater unity among people. This allows them to skim off enormous wealth from the gross national product that actually belongs to all people. If it is important to you, forward this message to others. Unite with those you are ordered to hate, according to Goethe because this is the counter strategy of "the wise". We should not allow them to continue winning in the same way for the next thousand years.
Divide-and-rule.
Draw lines, then set the people up against each other.
If there is a problem, blame somebody else.
That is the historical Albion's way.
Incredible how many can be deceived for so long.
They keep conflicts alive by drawing lines in favor of one group over the other. The lines were often randomly drawn through tribes, through religious- or ethnic groups, to favor either the one, then the other. This created volatile hot spots of ethnic conflicts to use as pretext for intervention and occupation as the moral "rule maker".
2
-
Those who wish to drag Ireland into the so-called "International (lol) Order" (lol again) are going to use a tried and proven method to get rid of the Triple Lock, so that Ireland starts to resemble the "US model" of government, of "parties with interests" who decide on wars, invasions, and policies of oppression and the extration of resources from weaker countries.
The USA needs willing "poodles" (Peter Hitchens), and are going to pay corruptable Irish leaders into becoming the advocates for said "US democracy" which is and has always been an intent of gain model to enable international rule and domination for US interests and US corporations, ever since the start of "US Imperialism" in 1898.
Beware Ireland: do not bow down.
"We decide something, then put it out there and wait a while to see what happens. If there is no big shouting and no riots because most people do not understand what has been decided, then we will continue - step by step until there is no turning back." — Jean Claude Juncker
This comment is not directed at Juncker as such, but at his class of the ruling elites and how they "operate".
There are four main strategies here, and 2 main declared principles.
Principle 1: No democratic decision making process.
Strategy 1: Delaying tactics
Strategy 2: Throwing the ball into your "court", the court of the "masses".
Principle 2: They think you are too stupid to grasp the depths of their decisions, so they mask these.
Strategy 3: The route of least resistance
Strategy 4: The step by step approach, as long as there is no resistance from the sleeping crowds, the next level is introduced until so much has been invested that turning back isn't an option anymore.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@manilajohn0182 Yes, correct of course.
All existing and aspiring empires are "perfidious by nature". Self-serving, more or less.
Or as I always say "nobody does anything for free", and that includes all empires.
Some might be more benevolent than others, but there is always a "price tag" for "help", and "help" is often self-serving.
It reminds me of the airline safety message of "put on your own oxygen mask first before helping others".
That's how "empires" tick. They "put on their own oxygen mask", and only then "help others"...sometimes :-)
Mackinder is great.
But unfortunately London did not seem to understand nor follow their own geopolitical "logic", and somehow missed the USA's rise "across the pond".
Or the fact that there might be some long-term grievances resulting from history.
Logic almost dictates that London should have sought to unite Europe, not play their "divide and rule" games with the continental powers.
After WW1, they descended one rung, and after WW2 they would lose their markets to the USA, their sphere of interest in Central Europe/Baltics/most of the Balkans to Moscow, the nr.1 position as "ruler of the world, the privilege of "Pax Britannica, both to the USA", their self-determined role of "balancer of powers" for the continent, their stated goal of being the "decider of wars" on the continent, and finally their "Empire".
2
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Fact is that Trump, or any other previous admin, did not stop this "(systemic) slow march".
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemony.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quiet or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
Just claim hero status for the self, and blame everybody else for everything which goes wrong.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Already predicted. Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
------------------------------------------
Footnote
With Europe set up against Russia, the USA will pivot to Asia (already the strategy since Obama).
We are supposed to admire them, but they never give anything of geopolitical/grand strategy value back. Ever. Ratchet principle.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Scandanavians on peacekeeping missions need to take care.
Remember Folke Bernadotte.
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemon.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quite or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS.
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Once there is an inpact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, and big business, and Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
2
-
2
-
As always, there is the big picture that goes far beyond ruins in Berlin and Dresden...
A big picture of geostrategy is hardly ever the focus of documentaries.
In end effect, Churchill sold British interests and the British Empire, because he couldn't see the big picture and didn't understand the policy of Balance of Power on the continent, as a tool to protect the British Empire.
The big picture was that there were forces in the USA whose goal it was to bring about the end of the British Empire, and they fought for their interests (which was global domination: Google "The American Century" or "PNAC Project for the New American Century", for more info).
On the other side, there was Stalin, who fought for the communist takeover of the entire world (Google Comintern, and the Comunist Manifest)....note, including the British Empire. Nuff said...
Churchill finally woke up in 1944, and realized that the world was being turned into a two power system, and that "the other system" would probably not be the British Empire. He came up with Operation Unthinkable...but too late...
The resources of Empire had already been squandered on a dumb military strategy of "flattening Germany" (Google "the financial cost of the British policy of Area Bombing", which took between a third and half of the entire British war effort).
Churchill didn't understand the British Policy of Balance of Power for the continent, which as a tool to ensure the safety of the British Empire had protected Empire for 400 years.
That meant, ensuring the balance of power, by avoiding the complete collapse a power one could ally with to avoid a bigger danger.
What had been done for 400 years to ensure the safety of Empire, was no longer possible in 1945, because on the continent everything was basically "Alles Kaputt", or alienated...
Germany kaput.
Italy kaput.
Poland, Czechoslovakia... sold off to the commies.
The Balkans? Fruitless attempts at "carving up interests" (Google Percentages Agreement)
France, alienated and now a Washington lapdog (understandable, after Mers el Kebir).
There was nobody to ally with in order to uphold Empire.
Communism, and American corporate capitalism, would erode it away within a decade...
Even in war all choices are options.
Politicians choosing the worst options always have far-reaching effects...
2
-
2
-
The strategies of the people who lead us remain the same.
The people who lead us in democracies change.
What they do in regards to foreign policy once in power remains fairly constant, irrelevant of who leads at any particular time.
The old sayings of "exchanging our leaders every few years" might avoid encrusted domestic politics and structures to a degree, but it has almost no effect on foreign policy. The way we vote has almost no influence on foreign affairs, which are mostly the effects of the long term policies of a few "corridors of power"-players.
Unfortunately not any of the highly visible televised leaders we vote for...
Remember that thought for a while. The essay will address it again at the very end.
Of course we should never allow the leaders' good or bad achievements concerning domestic affairs to interfere with analysing the equally important foreign policy. These are entirely different topics which does not interest people equally. It should.
Clinton: "It's the economy stupid".
Machiavelli: "Keep the masses well-fed and...oh never mind..."
Most people in a country won't react to foreign policy blunders, unless the effects of such blunders start affecting their own lives.
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
Whether we are discussing Trump, or Clinton or Biden, or Wilhelm II or the "proud rich hektoring squibbing London lords" (quoting Jefferson) of the past is irrelevant: they and their second and third tiers read the same books. We "commoners" mainly judge based on our bellies and bank accounts. We should start paying attention, because the reason why very small factions within governments (democracies or more authoritarian governments) succeed in their eternal ways, is because a majority of people don't react until their emotions are "triggered" by a major event...
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
No matter how many truly good people there are, with truly good intentions, it is easier to divide people based on what makes them different, than to unite them based on what they have in common. No matter how many truly good people we point at or give noble Nobel Prizes to, they cannot affect the actions of "the few" who have made it their perennial aim to divide.
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
Re. the topic "age old strategies", which remain fairly similar across the ages.
Just now, at a fundraiser in New Orleans Donald Trump made an insider joke re. an age-old strategy of divide and conquer.
An "insider joke" at an "insider event", just like John "Bomb bomb bomb, Bomb bomb Iran" McCain once made one waaaaay back. The same John McCain who just so happens to have gone to Kiew in 2014 to "support best fwiends". Supporting the "proud and rich and hektoring and squibbing" new friends who always need "help and support" of course (another "insider joke"). Regarding their own internal/foreign policy matters, it is different of course. The standpoint is to never to allow an outside power to affect/effect an internal problem, or to allow anybody else to get involved when an own foreign policy strategy is implemented, unless as "a best fwiend" of course.
When it comes to others and their problems? Answer: "Meddling" for "own interests" is perfectly OK.
Of course in regards to solving own political differences, never expect an outside power to come to "help out": there will be a "price tag".
My advice when somebody shows up to help: Have a close look at the background of exactly who is coming, and what "strategic studies"-centers they subscribe to. Be nice, but be-ware...lol
Of course Trump's "joke" (send US aircraft to the Ukraine in Chinese markings, to get Russians and Chinese fighting) belies an age-old strategy.
A scheme as old as the mountains, and has a limitless variety of nuance. In 1939, Stalin of course, was fully aware of how to "get others to fight", and then sit on the fence smoking a cigar..." enjoying the "racket". Just sell raw materials to Nazi Germany and being "nice" to all while waiting to see who "wins". Of course, for the "finger pointing" Moscow in 1939: they could point at the "inferior greedy capitalists" who "just can't get it right" and always end up at war. Stalin in August/September 1939: "Ima gonna wash my hands in innocence." A trick as old as the Bible itself.
Once the desired region of the world is at war, one can do business and keep the racket going (I'm sure Stalin was amused by reading "War is a Racket"/Smedley Butler or something similar). Or even worse: once entire regions of the world have been turned into "sh*tholes" (another Trump quote in a different context) the "good guys" can gain from the misery of others.
Whilst "in the own shoes", everybody is the "good guy".
In the eyes of the commies they were the good guys of course.
From an own perspective, everybody is the "good guy", and only strategies matter.
Solution: Figure out the strategies, which is boring and tedious.
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
The intended or desired outcome of "the scheming few" and their "insider jokes"? Get others to fight (in the strategy of "divide and rule/conquer" the formulation is "to foment trouble") and then "sit back and enjoy the popcorn" (Trump).
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
How to put a stop to all this? An endless struggle. No matter how many truly good people there are, with truly good intentions, it is easier to divide people based on what makes them different, than to unite them based on what they have in common.
The first step is to acknowledge and admit the issue, and to stop doing the bidding of these fine gentlemen in suits, or be fooled, or to deny their existence, or become a tool of these "few" and scream and denounce those warning us.
In regards to our own governments these "splinters in the own eye" are indeed tiny but powerfully irritating, until removed.
1) During the early-1990's (Gorbachov as President of the UdSSR and Yelsin as President of Russia), the option of "an agreement of sorts" (a suggested "morphed NATO" suitably changed to adapt to the changed times) existed to replace the Cold War setup (old global balance of power during the Cold War).
2) At around the turn of the century (around the year 2000, and the first Putin term) local wars started to cloud the optimism of the 1990s, but it was still realistic.
3) Then after 2010 our leaders should have at least aimed for "neutrality of some kind" between the players.
First a new hope, offered by a new situation, followed by a "diss"...
The only thing which changed between "around 1900" and "around 2000" was the alpha.
Finally.
Today one often sees the "...but, but the Ukraine is free and sovereign, and had the choice to join NATO if they wish. It was their choice...".
The answer to the rhetoric?
True. Whoever said they didn't have a choice?
Whoever said that NATO didn't also have a choice to just say "no", and suggest an alternative that ensures everybody's security issues?
But that is what happens if one ends up with highly televised ex-comedians and ex-boxers as leaders and figureheads, rather than global strategists.
One ends up as "ice" which will be crushed for the goals of the "icebreakers".
"Thin ice" which is signed away and sacrificed...
NATO does not "sign up" a state/country in a civil war or other similar state (war/duress).
Our leaders knew that.
They had this advantage over us...
2
-
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or the British Empire's Mackinder/Pivot of History before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their geographical advantage.
With re. to how tools to implement the strategy are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as Kissinger implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combated by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today.
Today as we watch on, the Ukraine is being burnt to the "last Ukrainian soldier" accompanied by cheers of "...but, but, but they had a choice!!"
Poland will be next to be given a "choice," if the Ukraine fails as US/Western proxy and tool, in a long list of previous examples of the Washington DC/Pentagon-steered global strategy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The use of millions of people as instruments of power to cause friction in Eastern Europe with NATO expansion in order to overpower a weakened Russia, was the set path in order to assure US "primacy" per strategy (Wolfowitz Doctrine, 1991). The smokescreen as cover was provided by the parallel running promises of comprehensive security agreements, OSCE, Partnership for Peace, et al whilst the feet were dragging, dragging, dragging, dragging, while talking, talking, talking...
The goal? Carve Russia up, and use the pieces left over to encircle on China, the next in line after Germany (Treaty of Versailles/post-WW2), and siphon off the riches for own gain.
Divide-and-rule/destroy/control simply moved further east.
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.” — Henry Kissinger (attr.)
When these few have the MEANS, they CONTROL the resources, and that includes human beings all over the globe as potential proxies as "human resources". They want what is under the feet of the Russians.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Austrian-Hungarian declaration of war on Serbia, and subsequent shelling of Belgrade, did not necessarily have to lead to "a Russian mobilisation" as is often insinuated in documentaries and history books.
Had Russia really wanted a peaceful solution, they could have declared war on Austria-Hungary, with an ultimatum to cease hostilities within a reasonable time (say 48 hours), threatening mobilization if not followed (see British and French reaction to Nazi Germany 20 years later, as the correct and acceptable course of action, in a similar situation of war).
That would then have given sufficient time for Berlin/Vienna to "backpedal", avoiding the disaster of an escalation.
Most documentaries and history books also don't mention that French and Russian leaders had already colluded in St Petersburg (20th to 29th of July) and they also knew that escalating a diplomatic crisis in the Balkans (July Crisis) into a military one, would cause a knee-jerk reaction by Berlin.
There was no way Berlin would ignore such a mobilization, especially a general mobilization of all Russian forces, and Paris/St Petersburg anticipated this.
Even before the Austrian-Hungarian declaration of war, Russian and French leaders talked about how to win a "great" war, not how to avoid it.
“There has never been a moral or legal requirement that a country wait to be attacked before it can address existential threats.”
Condoleezza Rice, October 2002
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
2
-
Actions have consequences...
However, British leaders were fools, and ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
[Search for: britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostrategy, and lost their Empire...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, he's not "making fun", but using irony and sarcasm.
Crenshaw lost his vision fighting in wars that need never have been.
Remember Rambo?
Remember those "brave Mujahedeen"?
You can be damn sure that Crenshaw caught the sarcasm, and therefore let it go...
Crenshaw lost his eye, while thousands of his buddies lost their lives, and hundreds of of thousands were wounded, or are fighting to keep sane (PTSD). Yup. Fighting exactly those same "brave Mujahedeen" that other Americans had trained, equipped, and funded.
Get it now?
Yes, my friend.
Because the populist slogan "the enemy of the enemy is my friend" is a fake. The people of Afghanistan will always view every foreign presence as the enemy (read some history).
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" was bs all along, because the people of Afghanistan never viewed Americans as "friends". ROTFL....fooled by Hollywood...
And simply because after "the enemy" is defeated, you're still left with an enemy, aren't you?
It is known to people with at least some brains as "false dichotomy". It leaves you under the impression that there are only 2 options (either friend, or enemy) while in fact several other options are available.
Get smart.
Learn to start thinking like your leaders think.
The people who create the wars (see my first comment. and I posted a few new ones under the video).
Yes, they will gladly send you in order so that you lose your eyesight, or worse...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron Bushell have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
After the abolition of the slave trade, and later slavery, the "we must end the slave trade"-excuse was almost immediately used as a pretext by systems intent on gain (US/European imperialist powers who stood in the position of POWER to benefit), in order to cover up their territorial ambitions in Africa with a "nice sounding story," aka the pretext.
A few hundred thousand slaves were "saved" by the good guys of history, who could now walk head-held-high and proud of their achievements, while at the same time, MILLIONS of blacks were becoming entrapped and CONTROLLED by their the new imperialist white masters and their local converted imperialist instruments of power ...and out of all of those globally committed WRONGS, arose the socialist movement.
The "beast" bred its own future "enemy."
Slavery was abolished, because there was more to be gained by abolishing it, than by perpetuating it.
WHAT WAS SYSTEMICALLY GAINED by imperialist systems in Great Britain, in order to more than compensate for the systemic loss of human property? If one studies this in detail, the slave owners were paid up front, whilst the system of taxpayers in Great Britain ended up paying right through to the year 2015: a giant re-distribution of money, from the bottom, to the top.
A giant vacuum cleaner, siphoning gain from the bottom to the top.
From the hard labor off the backs of the British working classes, and middle classes, to the ample and bottomless bank accounts of the British ruling elites.
Whilst the LITTLE TOOLS (mostly commoners all over the Empire) at the time, the 19th Century, were chest-thumping about how they were "fighting to end slavery," their masters employed them to implement the NEXT WRONG: the enslavement of even more helpless millions in hitherto unconquered regions of the planet (colonialism/imperialism which peaked around 1900).
In the above regard, it is interesting to study Eric Prince's (ex-Blackwater/Iraq) recent statements with regards to re-introducing colonialism, because, of course, I'm sure it's only because he cares so much about black lives, and corrupt African/ME leaders...
The modern prince WILL find his pathetic little imperialist tools: nothing in the current US/collective West system will stop him.
History will rhyme, because the masses are blind.
Is there any stopper within the current system who will stop the modern Machiavellian prince?
In fact the OPPOSITE is true, in that forces from within the collective West (profit oriented models) will even aid him in "fighting corruption," and (some/most) talking heads on TV will even cheer him on, just like imperialists set out to "fight slavery" or the "primitive beliefs" (sic.) in Africa 100 or 200 years ago. Why? Because just like 100 and 200 years ago, majorities were either too stupid to notice how they were being employed as tools, or too greedy to care. History will rhyme again, because it rhymed in the past, and it will rhyme in the future. And back home, far away from the destruction this modern prince will perform in the name of freedumb and democracy? Some folks back home will find these meddlers to be cool. Some will despise them and call them out. Some will love Eric Prince, and his armies, and some will hate him for what he'll be doing.
Whatever.
It doesn't matter.
Because they will all argue and argue, and debate and debate endlessly, and talk and talk and talk an talk...
Because THAT is how divide and rule is implemented, and kept in place as THE top strategy of power, by the deceitful top tiers of power who run off with the money in the background, while everybody else is talking endlessly.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If one understands what happened to China during their "Century of Humiliation," means that one then already has the template to understand what is happening today. One can use the historical "template" and apply it in the same manner.
What happened to China during that era, is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today. Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the little minions benefiting from the outside POWER of imperialism to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) crises into "eternal problems," sit by and do nothing as problems foment into violence, revolutions, and wars, or carry out other forms of privatized interference (corporatism) under government protection, or without. Whatever works, details really REALLY DON'T MATTER. Once "fomented troubles" rise out of hand, claim to "just want peace." Then use the little minions as favourites (favouritism = a technique within the "divide and rule" strategy of power) to destabilize an entire region, steer them against other weaker entities, and/or employ them as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regions as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc.
Whatever works for the desired region to be divided/conquered or where CONTROL and domination is required for the economic systems of gain.
There is no way that current day Chinese leaders will not have learnt their very own historical lesson, and allow their very own history to repeat/rhyme, and allow such outside meddling in the own systems to gain traction, AGAIN for a second time.
Every nation or state has its own "Never again!"
European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonial ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon. These citizens, usually around 50% of entire populations, suffer directly ("heating or eating"), or indirectly (soaring inflation), these are all "effects," not to be confused with "causes" (see concept of retro causality, one of the most easily misused ways to skew a timeline of events). Some eventually even end up in the muddy trenches.
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their (temporary) GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
With re. to how tools are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also, that a "plan" and the strategy to effect the plan, are two different things.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as the USA implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combatted by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today. Outsiders intent on playing the game, use the revolutionary spirit, in order to hop onto useful dissent, strengthen it, and insert levers which they can pry open to gain own advantages. Beijing is certainly 100% aware of this, so everything you are witnessing today is a political EFFECT, not a political "cause" as some leaders wish to mislead us towards.
Everything you are being told about Berlin, in stages after 1894, 1904, 1907, and 1912, with gathering momentum, were EFFECTS, not CAUSES. That was, based on observation, outside powers with the intention to "divide and rule" Europe, by encroaching/encircling the major continental power, which has never changed throughout recent modern history. The ONLY factor which changed over the last few centuries, was the "major continental power" which had to be CONTROLLED by the outside power who wanted a competitive advantage. The historical parallel, is the "Chinese Century of Shame"-historicity, and is well-known at least to the 1.4 billion inhabitants of China today. Certainly, they also do not wish to become "carved up" and ruled over by outsiders again, for a second time. The template therefore predicts a similar outcome, that of the more encroachment/encirclement, the more likeliness of the "breakout attempt" in some possible future.
Obvious solution for a more stable world, stop the encroachment/encirclement.
Both historically (post-1900) as well as our recent history (post-2000) there seems little incentive for those with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to do so, but rather the repeated attempts to search for tools to do such encroachment/encirclement FOR the outside power/s intent on gain.
Empires do not become dominant because they hand out candy and bouquets of flowers, as most realists are fully aware of, therefore the wise advice to always keep a just/wise "balance of powers. If not, fail.
Power flows to where the attention goes first, in geopolitics, in the form of political policies.
These can be studied by looking at the events themselves, not what another human being tells you (incl. this essay, which doesn't tell you anything, but implores you to start focusing on the well-known events themselves, from which one can then infer the underlying hidden policies, strategies, or objectives).
If you live in East Asia, beware of the "dividers".
The hawks will come looking for "buck catchers" and the doves will disguise it as the "helping friends"-narrative = i.e. the template of modern western imperialism. Hawks and doves working in close unison, although stated as being opposite poles within their own US/collective West mindset.
They WILL come to you, same way as they came to the Ukraine, following the 1990s.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
2
-
Asking the wrong questions on a limited scope and timeline will not reveal the divide-and-rule technique.
The empire set off on the "G-G Line" from Germany to Greece, during the First Cold War after declaring war ("cold" war/1947).
It advanced to the "B-B Line" from the Baltics to the Black Sea (see footnote) after the "peace" was declared to the plebs after the 1990s, and a bright new future pwomised to all the children of history, believers...
How long do you think it will take for the empire, wriggling and writhing about ("divide-and-rule"), hopping over here and there ("pivoting") before they reach the "A-A Line"?
The goals of the "dividers" who wield the power, is simply that their politics is the continuation of war by other means...
‐-----------
The "B-B Line".
When people start thinking in terms of dichotomies like winning/losing, left/right wing, us/them, right/wrong, unity/division, they are already all "losers."
Think in terms of a desirable outcome. If not, lose.
Outsiders fabricate the "crescent of crises" around your heartland.
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
If outsiders come from outside and start drawing lines on the map, through your homelands without asking the people who live there.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. They allow outsiders to play the cards FOR them.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS. Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Rome. London. Washington DC.
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Dear Dr Masani: there is only "history".
As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives".
One perspective should not rank higher than another.
Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable".
The reality?
As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
2
-
2
-
Between "around 1900" and "around 2000," nothing has really changed.
Those who intended to use DIVISION to RULE are still the same type of people, only slightly shapeshifted.
Apart = separate = divide.
Apartheid = divide and rule
RULE by DIVISION.
Don't try to hide the strategy, by inventing new terms. Only the weakest of minds will never acknowledge what they are really doing. Set people and groups up against each other, and then rule over, or gain from polarization.
Critical question: how does a minority CONTROL a majority? How does a faraway empire, control a large group of people? Correct answer, call "them" (outgroup) a "potential tyranny" and divide them.
The DIVIDED being "sown dissent upon," by the dividers from outside, in slow incremental steps.
APARTHEID EMPIRES
All historical European global empires, incl. the British Empire, were of course "Apartheid empires" since they had two/three-tier systems as default settings.
They practiced divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, just like South African systems of power did in Southern Africa, not only inside the own borders, but beyond the own borders.
Apart = separate = divide.
Divide-and-control/rule.
Gain from polarization.
To RULE by DIVISION.
A globally operating HEGEMONY can likewise play the same divide-and-control/rule games everywhere on the globe and that the borders need never change in order to play the "games". The previous HEGEMONS had the clout to practice divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, just like Washington DC systems of power did in the USA, not only inside the own borders, but beyond.
To play games, the borders need never change. All it needs is POWER, a set of rules for ordering everybody else around, and a position of impunity from any setbacks.
The attitude is then that somebody else can pick up the tab if anything goes wrong, then strut about like the sun shines out of the own you-know-what.
Point the finger, at the DIVIDED.
Gain from polarization.
Today, our easily-deceived Western leaders in the self proclaimed "good West" (not strategists) tell us that there will be peace, as long as everybody adheres to the belief system that "the borders may never change". Everybody who changes the established borders is "evil" (unless of course, it is the own capital cities, or their proxies doing so: then it is "justified" by finger-pointing somewhere else). The own tiered system of "us/them" says so, so it must be "true." Hypocrisy is not a moral failure, but a strategy of power. Calling out the immoral, won't change them, since they don't care what you think, nor do they HAVE to care...
The psychological term for when people accuse others of something they themselves have done or are doing is almost always projection when some form of gain is involved, such as politics. The allegory of "finger pointing, three fingers pointing back" is also spot on, because the "pointing finger" is mostly accompanied by very vocal theatrics, whilst the "three fingers" are kept hidden. The ancient allegory hints at causality, because own previous actions kept quiet, are also the CAUSE of the "pointing finger" the finger-pointer tries to deflect to. It is the same hand "CAUSING" and POINTING. This is not only an allegory, but also a strategy of power which politicians and other systemic gain models use to distract, misinform, obfuscate, or deflect blame: the weakest and therefore the most unworthy form of leadership ("buck passers") thus wiggle and slime their way into power. Unfortunately weak and pathetic deceivers are usually very common in systems of democracy/capitalism.
When one is in a sea of finger-pointers, the true leader rises to the challenge, and takes the blame, and then leads towards solutions. We have none. We vote for slimy deceitful finger-pointers, and too many people stuck in the "bread and circuses"-existences looooove the show...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. They would wait.
This is divide-and-rule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Seeing how most of the comments are slogans and appeals to emotion, I'll just jump into the fray.
For hundreds of years, the British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations around the world. Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images"). When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets". The locals defending their own? Pfffft. Nobody cared...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps (called "penal colonies"), and terror bombing innocents called Air Policing...
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s killed their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
2
-
@Jabib Galt Easy.
Socialism is, in a nutshell "the means of production and distribution of goods under the control of the state", and often means wide scale control of the economy by the people.
Populism is, also in a nutshell "handing out of goodies (social programmes) in return for populist support.
Both are present in many forms, and in many political and economic models.
China is a Marxist Socialist state. Google it.
Examples of populism? Currently, for example Poland (handing out state revenues as "baby money" to increase birth rates), or the US (Trump using state revenues, i.e. trade tariffs to struggling farmers).
Such "freebies" and "goodies" in return for support of populist leaders is common. It led to the downfall of Greece, after cheap EU loans stayed out after the financial crisis of 2009.
It also led to the downfall of Venezuala, because the state could not keep up with the promises it had made to supporters, once the price of oil fell...
How am I doing so far?
You seem to be a smart chap. I suggest doing your research elsewhere, and not on the channel of a conservative think tank, skewing and indoctrinating the uninformed into chanting "VENEZUELA" and "SOCIALISM" .
They are using misdirection and spinning information for political purposes...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
These "little known back stories" reveal the geopolitics behind the decisions of the people who lead us.
Fact: Washington DC attempted to keep the secret of nuclear weapons out of the hands of London, if only for as long as possible, until "Rule Britannia" had collapsed, opening the way to "rule America"...
[Google The American Century]
When yet another European war broke out, the "best friends" over on the other side of the Atlantic, far far away from the action...where in no danger whatsoever...
In reality, it was "The American Centur" for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and cute "Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world works...
Has anybody ever wondered why the "best friends" over in the New World didn't sail in like heroes to help out in 1939 or 1940?
Because during WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
The USA said to the rest of the world, including "special friends", you shall not have nuclear weapons!
[Google British Nuclear Program]
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
That is some weird "special relationship" if you ask me.
A "friend" who does not even want you to have nukes, if he has some himself?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers.
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same butt which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity.
Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."
Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power.
In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS.
Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket for the modus operandi. Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
---------------------------------------
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hagitok1 How is that relevant?
He is trying to create the argument that (paraphrasing) "each and every Jew, regardless of where they lived in the world at the beginning of the 20th century, had some or other connection to the land," which is an appeal to emotion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
Therefore Jews deserved a homeland there.
At the same time, he is trying to deminish the argument that the 650,000 people already living there at the time, of mixed ethnicity, religion, or culture, had no "mysterious connection to the land" because they were just Turks, or Syrians, or whatever, even if they were born there, and had lived there for generations during the Ottoman Empire.
That is not a realistic argument. Where do you live? Would you give up your claim to self-determination to your land, because some Viking-era rocks were found underneath your state, so now the Norwegians want to come and live there, introduce own laws and customs, changibg your way of life, and all because of discovering some "mysterious connection to the land"?
BTW, what he is doing is known as the Red Herring in debates, or laying a trail to distract from what the real issue was back then, which was determined at the state level: Here is what happened:
During WW1, the British Empire faciltated an overpowering demographic changing mass-immigration into the Levant, against the wishes of most people who already lived there (around 650,000 of mixed cultural/ethnic origin).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Divide and rule, weaken and conquer, love and enslave, these are three tenets of politics" ― Bangambiki Habyarimana
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is. Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
Outsiders come and pick favorites, and feed them with bribes and corruption.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
BEWARE AFRICA
Outsiders will return, same as 100 and 200 years ago, to divide your peoples, and rule over the dissent and chaos.
UNITE
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Churchill was a terrible strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created facts . The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Blue Star "The Land of Israel (Hebrew: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, Modern: Eretz Yisrael, Tiberian: ʼÉreṣ Yiśrāʼēl) is the traditional Jewish name for an area of indefinite geographical extension in the Southern Levant. Related biblical, religious and historical English terms include the Land of Canaan, the Promised Land, the Holy Land, and Palestine (see also Israel (disambiguation)). The definitions of the limits of this territory vary between passages in the Hebrew Bible, with specific mentions in Genesis 15, Exodus 23, Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 47. Nine times elsewhere in the Bible, the settled land is referred as "from Dan to Beersheba", and three times it is referred as "from the entrance of Hamath unto the brook of Egypt" (1 Kings 8:65, 1 Chronicles 13:5 and 2 Chronicles 7:8)."
[Wiki]
Nice try but...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Agreed.
However, British leaders were fools, and ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
[Search for: britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@marylander3798 Yes, totally agreed.
That is not also true with regards to foreign policy, incl. ME policy, but also domestic politics. It is incredible which percentages of Americans agree on basic human "rights" like affordable health care, or stricter gun control (all around 75% in favor), but they won't get it because their own politicians block such initiatives because of (mostly) corporate interests.
That points at a much wider issue, which is that US power players, elites, and politicians mostly "side" with corporate interests, against democratic means (demos = " the people"). As you probably know, the USA is not a good example of "democracy" in which "the people" collectively determine the objectives and goals.
2
-
Slavery was abolished, because there was more to be gained by abolishing it, than by perpetuating it.
With a few exceptions, nobody in the landowner class abolished slavery because they woke up one morning feeling sorry for "poor slaves" lanquishing in misery. In the British Empire, the families who had gained enormous wealths off the backs of slaves for hundreds of years, now earned massively again in return for abolishing slavery, at the expense of British taxpayers. The slave owners were paid in advance. The last installment of this gaint "wealth distribution"-scheme from the bottom up (the armies of taxpayers) to the top (ruling class), was only paid back in 2015.
Furthermore, the freed slaves were immediately replaced by a system of exploitation called "indentured servitude". For the landowner class, the grift was double as good. Reimbursed upfront, whilst engaging the next exploitive scheme. What a coincidence that the British Empire "freed slaves" at just the same time they had finished their brutal conquest of India, and the "divide and rule/conquer" subjection of almost the entire Indian subcontinent, meaning that GB came into the possession of an inexhaustible amount of cheap labor. An imperialist advantage no other state on the planet enjoyed: The British Empire simply did not NEED slaves anymore to prosper, but other rivals, like the USA did. The British Empire could now strutt about, all goody-two-shoes, pointing at all those other nasty white people who still held slaves. Forbidding slave trade and slave labor, was a form of economic warfare on its potential rivals, mainly the USA and had little to do with empathy for suffering, since these "white devils" were was still meting out unprecidented suffering everywhere they turned up.
All the while, the poor and middle-class paid of the slavery debt.
Sorry "taxpayer class".
You lose.
Again, and again, and again, and again...because you fall for the dumb stories your ruling elites tell are "the truth."
And today? The families who received their enormous "reinbursements" for "lost property" (slaves/human beings) upfront 200 years ago, still block any and all freedom of information acts, to keep hidden who they are.
YOU and your working-class ancestors were allowed to pay, but you are not allowed to find out WHO GAINED BIGTIME 200 hundred years ago.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Re.: Carpet bombing city centers.
"Right or wrong", or "Was it a war crime", or "Who started", is all irrelevant.
Our elites have divided us "commoners" and "grunts", and are agitating behind closed doors, while we do the squabbling...
Because there's always a big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Google: britannica & balance-of-power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to play "balancing games" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...you loose your empire to the new kids in town...
From the unmistakable "Nr.1" in 1900, down to "merely on par" with Washington DC after WW1, down to "third fiddle" during the Cold War. All in less than a single lifetime...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. The world was divided in "East" and "West".
And down went the British Empire too...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@apexpredatorXx Yes, a great comment.
Even the Bible implores God's followers "not argue about words."
https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/2-14.htm
Obviously the message of the Bible, taken as an entirety, not cherry picked, is as follows: be good, do good
Simple.
Yet, on videos like this by PragerU his most devout followers judge, interpret words, dismiss, get offended, and "strike back" ...because of words.
Irony...
2
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better.
Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power.
In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." (end of)
There is no doubt that Washington DC is attempting to repeat this "success" (pov) in the rising powers of Asia.
The strategy can be observed to be implemented in the same way as was set up post-1900 in Europe, but in Europe the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer theory) were Great Britain and France.
Today, it is India being used in the same role as France was 100 years ago. In case of a wider war in Asia, as India is set up against China, qui bono if all lose?
The technique Washington DC employed up to the year 2000, is an almost exact repeat of the technique they used to overpower Europe around the year 1900: DIVIDE AND RULE.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hasan is correct.
His core message is founded on sufficient evidence, so what's the issue?
As Robert Kennedy Jr. notes about the history of the ME:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster
So who was it that went to their world, removed their moderate leaders, and replaced them with religiously indoctrinated nitwits?
Correct answer: Our religiously indoctrinated nitwits who wanted to turn people into tools....lmfao...
The USA absolutely loooooves Jihadists, as long as they don't act against the USA.
Or, that Biblical logic: "the people shall reap what your leaders have sown"...
2
-
For the British Empire, commencing roughly the year 1900, every "victory" was in fact a nail in the own coffin.
The following essay will explain how first London, and then Washington DC used mainly divide and rule/conquer strategies at key watershed moments throughout history in order to effect world domination, mainly facilitated by a geographical advantage. Unlike conventional wisdom suggests, such policies were not only implemented in overseas territories and colonies, but were indeed also used against the continental European powers, within the limitations of the power balance at any given time in history. In order to first become and then later stay the world hegemon, distance coupled with a financial and technological edge, were converted into political means (policies) by London power players. Up to the early-20th century, these realities gave London that slight edge over their continental rivals which were already divided due to a variety of reasons. As time progressed and war ravaged Europe in the first half of the 20th century, technology advanced further, so that the geographical advantage once enjoyed by London, passed over to the USA and Washington DC's power players. After World War 2 the multipolar world up to the 19th century turned bipolar, then unipolar as the Cold War ended or the systems morphed.
Historically, European conflicts between systems based on structurally similar dynasties, turned into a struggle between ideologically different systems. Rather than the previous limited wars up to the early-20th century, wars then became total. The different systems tended to strive to overpower, marginalize, integrate or destroy other conflicting systems if symbioses was not possible. The key to success here, and the novelty of the theory presented, was that the core means employed were strategies resembling divide and rule/conquer. The systems which had the geographical advantage, either allied with, beguiled, befriended or otherwise favored other systems if useful for own gain. What set these loose alliances of friendships or ententes apart from other systems which also united, was a lack of obligation to react in any specific way during times of crises or wars. The distinct advantage of geography being that those with such a competitive advantage would not have to fear an existencial threat to the own systems and could be more bold in international relations, or delaying actions in crises or wars until a favorable point on the timeline, based on the technological standpoint humanity had reached at the point in time.
Such divide and rule strategies were in fact standing London policies, disguised by careful use of language in policies. Since the logic of balanced powers to avoid great wars was widely accepted within the framework of the Concert of Europe, no other capital city seemed to have noticed or objected. Rather than aiding relative peace, which persisted in most of Europe for around a century after 1815, London's policy standpoint as sole "balancer of powers", resulted in an ever greater risk of a total war of the systems. At the core of Europe, these older continental European systems grew in extent and power in the leadup to 1914, under constant stress in efforts to balance power due to the fact that land borders resulted in more exposure to danger from a neighboring system: placing continental powers in a situation of a relative geographical disadvantage while engaging in crises or wars. While London could always find a power to temporarily ally with on the continent, the reverse was not possible (on Britain), because the UK had achieved an early unification process. The "decider" would always be London. Continental powers therefore faced the geographically disadvantageous locations with regards to expansive aims. This was directly opposed to faraway systems which had the geographical advantage of distance from this core of the Old World. Few seemed to have noticed the potential for MAD as time passed. Due to her geographical advantage, and at London's sole discretion, the "balancer" London stood aloof. The technological standpoint at the time meant she was detached from all danger to the own heartland which was England. A role which was guarded by the Royal Navy. London was the "sole divider and sole decider of wars". That eventually lead to the unintentional end of European world rule and domination, including their own. It was a careful use of language which meant that most of the above did not need to be kept hidden, but the words used indeed reveal a standing policy of "divide et impera". In fact, most of it happened out in the open, in newspaper articles, treaties, conferences, political summits, etc. and for all current witnesses to observe and study because just like today, it is possible to drive multiple policies in parallel. Most observers simply did not recognize the events for what they were, or they noticed and considered the status quo as a meritocracy or a well-deserved own right, or they did not pay attention. Distinct systems with many similarities and many differences employing strategies as a way to achieve greater gain for the own system.
The theory comes in two parts, that of 1) divide and rule, in which case the dividing power is actually in a position to exploit an imbalance in power, to impose a ruling on another side by ensuring the continued rift between opposing systems, and the more common 2) divide and gain, where the power intent on creating an advantage for its own system, has to suffice with splitting potential unity in the making apart, but lacks sufficient power to impose a ruling.
Divide and rule/conquer is revealed by events.
Unlike human beings, events don't lie, steal, or kill.
Unlike human beings, events which are proven to have happened, and are not disputed to have occured, do not deceive, manipulate, or "tweak" the own perceived "truths" in order to generate positive feelings in a flurry of "99% ancillary details", which then distorts vision...
The biggest mistakes France ever made was making "best fwiends" with rimlands (geoploitics/London/Washington DC), who were not on the continent of Europe.
In 1940, Paris finally found out how much they were "valued".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you Lincoln Center
Time to set the USA right again.
“My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”
Carl Schurz, US Senator, GOP
Time to be a patriot, or according to G.K. Chesterton:
“‘My country, right or wrong,’ is a thing that no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying, ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Wrong question.
It should be "Who benefited form London's inability to change, in the face of changing global circumstances?"
That was "Washington DC".
"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused," as stated as desirable by Woodrow Wilson, one of the world's biggest advocates of imperialism/white supremacy, whilst hiding behind a "an image" of being a liberal/idealist/progressive (taken from a unpublished paper of 1907, as quoted in The Rising American Empire, 1960, by Richard Warner Van Alstyne, p. 201.)
Wilson of course was simply looking at what had happened the past 200 years as the original "13 colonies", first fought for independence, and then started going N.E.W.S. (North/East/West/South), brushing away all in its path. They wouldn't stop going, until they bumped up against European imperialism, their biggest rivals.
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed."
Such statements were taken from a series of Washington DC "strategy papers". To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this."
(taken from, in parts: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive Diplomático y escritor)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
Correct.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics.
The real question that should be asked, and therefore the premise of any debate is: Was it wise at the time?
To which the simple answer is "no".
They ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The removal of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe turned out to be a massive "shot in the own foot" for the West.
The 12 million Germans which were expelled from Eastern Europe, actually protected the West, and by extension, also the British Empire.
By their acquiescence to removing them, London no longer had the leverage to enforce treaties, or protect own interests.
Really as simple as that...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angry about Mers el Kebir and had slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
There was nothing left to "balance" with...
That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
2
-
@HistoryHustle That it was a fitting end by "switching the lights off".
Europe was "lights out", and those far away from squabbling Europeans took over.
WW1 was the first time in 20 years "the lights in Europe would go out", and Europeans would not see them go on again...ever.
They would flicker again 1919, to 1939, and then go out again.
With that, they had sacrificed their position of rulers of the world, and others would take over...
Because, the type of rule or economy plays little role in the outcome of whether one "rules the world" or not.
Geography plays a far bigger role.
So at the turn of century London "ruled the world" because geography isolated them from the continent and their island status gave them the upper hand at a time when war was still the common way to determine "top dog" or not....
When development of weapons produced ever further reaching weapons of war, GB's island status did not offer the same measure of protection anymore...so they went down.
The weapons of 1900 couldn't harm the British Empire, but the weapons of 1945 could....
In that era around WW2, it was the USA which was (as the sole power) isolated from this "great game", and benefited as the result of its geographical isolation, and because there was that "one ring which ruled them all"...lol, but in a good way of course.
And it wasn't only the forces of evil who wanted to "rule the world", but also people who thought they had a God-given right to do so...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
...and who thought they were better than everybody else...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
2
-
@HistoryHustle The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
So...friends one day, enemies the next...
The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
Again, geography decided on "friends" or "enemies".
2
-
@HistoryHustle So to conclude: London was not on friendly terms with Berlin, because of an own policy.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Note here, "London", and not the other "99%" of the people, business partners, organizations, etc. which got along just fine with Germany before they became the strongest continental economy.
Why was this policy fundamentally flawed?
Because as the alpha male it is much wiser to take the strongest entity as "the friend", as the default setting (politically friendly, and/or a partner).
Not to make it "the rival" in peacetime, and "enemy in war", as the default setting, as London did.
Note.
The policy came first.
It existed long before Germany even existed, "nasty Wilhelm" or anyone else stepped into the scene.
It predetermined "friend" or "enemy".
It had little to do with what any German leader did politically.
Why was it wiser to make the stronger entity "a friend"? (Entente, alliance, or likewise)
Simple answer.
Because it saves "empires", if you have an empire to protect.
And it makes empires, if one wishes to create "empires".
Washington DC showed London how the game is best played.
Make the strongest country/state/alliance/entity the "friends", not the other way around...
Out went Rule Britannia/Pax Britannica...
In stepped The American Century/Pax Americana...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lakemichigan6598 Not really.
Firstly, it was GB or UK (England, Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland), not only England.
Then, the entire Empire also stood by GB (Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, India, etc.), which was a quarter of the globe.
Then, German and Italian forces were drawn off by the campaign in the Balkans (fighting against Yugoslavia and Greece) in March 1941.
The Axis invasion of the SU started on 22. June 1941, almost 6 months before the USA joined the war.
Not exactly "alone"...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@2Dylandog Re. your comment.
Of course, there was a relatively easy "recipe for success" to ensure the future of the British Empire.
Your comment = internal pressure (rising worldwide nationalism)
My above comments = external pressures
I'm from South Africa, so I can draw parallels: The same Apartheid which led to the failure of South Africa in the 1970s/1980s is the same "apartheid" which led to the end of the British Empire.
Of course, in both cases the gentlemen in control were too slow to pull the helm around, and change the disastrous course they were on.
For the British Empire.
1) Make timely internal changes:
In a nutshell, more "freedom, liberty, and self-determination" for all the subjects of the British Empire, thereby turning it into a "Pound block of equals" of sorts.
2) dump the disaster created by their own Policy of Balance of Power:
That pitted GB/Empire against the strongest continental power/alliance/country as a default setting.
It was a few "London lords" who once led the way, stiff-upper-lipping their way over the proverbial "lemming cliff", because of pride and arrogance (leading to an unwillingness to change), thereby leading to the situations which caused "Empire" to fade away in less than a lifetime.
From the unmistakable nr.1 at the turn of the century (around 1900), down to "merely on par" with the "new best fwiends" the USA, down to "third fiddle" in the Cold War...
All "engineered" by The American Century, using the same political/financial/policy "tools" (because after 1900 geography slowly began giving Washington DC the leverage/advantage), that London once used when London had the geographical advantage (during the 19th and early-20th century)...
2
-
2
-
Today, Washington DC/USA intends to keep its role as "alpha" of the world (just like London/GB did "around 1900"), gained from European empires after WW2.
There is even an "insider joke" about NATO, which is that it intends to "keep Germany down, and Russia out".
Effect: Washington DC/USA stays the master of European affairs.
NATO is now just another tool in the toolbox of "divide and conquer", going back all the way to the 18th century, when the USA was first established.
European powers failed to morph NATO into a more suitable system following the end of the Cold War "around the year 2000".
A system including Russia and all post-Warsaw Pact nations equally, in a comprehensive security agreement.
Note always: What did not happen.
Of course a comprehensive security agreement without ...ahem...."parallel tweaties", and a "morphed NATO" into a strong arm of international law = power to actually follow up with punch if "the law" is broken.
A new system under which laws, codified by the international community, actually formed a basis of cooperation, not "muh interests you know..."
US leaders realized that the key to their own superiority lay in dividing Europeans any which way they could (note, "Europe" is a geographical term, and includes Russia).
Sowing dissent.
The "freedom and democracy"-argument, backed up by coffers filled to the brim with "slush fund" money...
Sow dissent.
Irrelevant of whether the actors come with good intentions, or are even aware of what they are ultimately doing: Divide and Rule/Conquer, for a different system.
"In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution had been defeated and its leaders, who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile by the Stadtholder, William V, Prince of Orange, in league with the old oligarchs and with the intervention of Britain and Prussia. Adams and Jefferson agonized for the Dutch Patriots, but felt that they had been betrayed by their own excesses as well as by their Bourbon ally. The fact that France, pledged to the Patriots, had not lifted a finger in their support offered a melancholy lesson for the United States..."
(from ugapress manifoldapp)
Who doth even recognize the "freedom and democracy"-argument here?
Irrelevant of intentions, it fits the definition of "sowing dissent" in an existing "system".
Irrelevant of whether the reader has any personal preferences: the actions fit words, and words have definitions, which are a strategy. Divide others, to avoid unity.
Of course, at this early stage the USA had no way to implement "rule" in any form.
A divided Europe suited Washington DC just fine, because should Europe ever unite, it could pose an existential threat to the new USA...
The more division in Europe, the better.
Support whatever divides.
Oppose whatever unites.
For the own side: the more unity in North America, the better.
The "rule"-part over Europe would have to wait...
And in North America, other...ahem..."systems" would have to go too (American Civil War, all about "poor slaves" we are told...)
So much for the New World.
In the leadup to WW1, London thought they were clever, and that they could gain by dividing everybody else in Europe. "Divide and rule/conquer": note that "rule" has different meanings, and one meaning of the word is simply to "dictate terms" to others, based on an advantage in power.
To make it clear, London never intended "direct rule" over any continental country or adversary, because they were too weak for that, but rather to divide continental powers and thereby gain the advantage of dictating terms in case of negotiations, crisis, or wars.
What "the lords" didn't seem to notice, was that while they were "ruling" over the continent, based on a geographical advantage, somebody else was playing the same game with them.
It was Washington DC, playing "divide and conquer/rule" with Europe, and to the leaders here, GB was simply a part of "Europe" (geographical entity).
There are two ways to conquer people: one is by war, the other by debt, which is exactly what Washington DC did.
After a few hundred years, the game had simply been flipped 180 degrees.
Around 1900 there were "two systems" in Europe: one "librul" (lol), one "conservative"...
The "dividers and rulers" could play to their heart's content...
And around 2000 "history rhymed", and nobody noticed...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics.
The real question that should be asked, and therefore the premise of any debate is: Was it wise at the time?
To which the simple answer is "no".
They ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Bomber "expire the Empire" Harris...
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling to ashes" Harris...
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial ruin...
Quote: "The work puts the economic cost of the offensive into its historical context by describing the strategic air offensive and its intellectual underpinnings. Following this preliminary step, the economic costs are described and quantified across a range of activities using accrual accounting methods. The areas of activity examined include the expansion of the aircraft industry, the cost of individual aircraft types, the cost of constructing airfields, the manufacture and delivery of armaments, petrol and oil, and the recruitment, training and maintenance of the necessary manpower. The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note here, that waaaaaay before Hitler, and loooong before "nasty Wilhelm", it was also British leaders who chose to make every single German citizen the enemy in case of war. Not the other way around. [Google Britannica: London Policy of Balance of Power]
2
-
Reality with re. to the "good whites" who "abolished slavery".
Slavery was abolished, because there was more to be gained by abolishing it, than by perpetuating it.
In a changing world where more and more people were becoming literate (mid 19th century), and newspapers and knowledge spread widely, it was simply a good "finger pointing"-tool.
The states which had abolished it, and paid the slave owners handsomely as an incentive, could now "finger point" at "bad states/people" in a giant propaganda match.
With a few exceptions, nobody "abolished slavery" because they woke up one morning feeling sorry for "poor slaves" lanquishing in misery.
In GB, the families who gained millions over millions of Pounds in return for "abolishing slavery" in a massive "trickle up"-scheme, at the expense of taxpayers, were paid in advance. The last "installment" of this gaint "wealth distribution"-scheme from the bottom up (the armies of taxpayers) to the top (ruling class), was only paid back in 2015.
LOL...BAMBOOZLED...
Sorry "taxpayer class".
You lose.
Again, and again, and again, and again...
The families who received their "reinbursement" for "lost property" (human beings) upfront 200 years ago, still block any and all freedom of information acts, to keep hidden who they are.
YOU are not soposed to find out "WHO GAINED BIGTIME" 200 hundred years ago, but YOU must bleat out the "whites are good people, cos we ended slavery"-narrative...
It was done for gain for the own "empire", at the expense of some other "empire".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ernstbtmn Next time they come with the dumb "Trump looooooves the LGBTQ community soooo much"- bs, maybe point out that the UN Human Rights Declaration of 1948 has already banned any kind of discrimination, including that on sex, and that it was Trump who ordered leaving the UNHR Comitee (Ambassador Hailey).
Here is the full text (2 Articles):
" Article 1
Free and equal
All human beings are born free and equal and should be treated the same way.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Freedom from discrimination
Everyone can claim their rights regardless of sex, race, language, religion, social standing, etc.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."
[End of quote]
2
-
2
-
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Dear PragerU.
Morals are, according to definition, standards of behaviour.
No, it wasn't ok to have slaves 200 or 300 years ago, because the Bible says to "do onto others, as you wish to be done onto", setting the moral standard for Christians.
If I remember correctly, they were reading the same Bible 200 or 300 years ago. The message in the Bible was the same, and the behaviour of slave traders, owners, or the markets selling them like animals was therefore immoral.
The question "Was it moral?" doesn't change, because a few hundred years passed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hamas, just like every single "terrorist" organisation EVER, at any point in history ever, in any geographical location ever, by any religion ever, are always an EFFECT of oppression.
The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they created themselves with own PREVIOUS political actions, as terrorists...
Terrorism/Freedom fighting (POV) is always an "effect" not a "cause."
If you live in the west, then you (personally), or your parents, grandparents or previous generations have never ever ever fought anybody your own leaders have not personally set you up against.
Try me on this one.
Name me the war, incl. this current "War on Terror", and I'll inform you how your own government created it (aka "lay the foundation").
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Too stupid to avoid disunity.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS.
Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite?
Today we see millions of followers of Islam, praying in their mosques in West Asia, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS, and 125 years ago we saw millions of followers of Christ, praying in their churches, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS. Oh, wait...we didn't see it...
We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", and "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin" on reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart".
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Zionism arose during the 1890s as European ideology.
It basically slumbered along until WW1.
During WW1, as the war dragged on, the UK intended to bring the USA into their "side."
Zionism was one of the routes open to them, into Washington DC, since they already fought in the ME.
A trade-off was made, which stated that US Jwes would lobby Washington DC to join the war, in "return" London would help them create an own homeland, or state (of several options open in the British Empire, the most desirable was the "historical Israel").
That is basically the "nutshell version" of the foundation which was lain, since the region was already promised to the Arabs, as their incentive to fight the Ottoman Empire alongside the British and French.
2
-
2
-
The question why it took GB 7 years after WW2, to carry out their 1st nuclear test, even though the technology had already been developed by international scientist (also British) before 1945.
Because its the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and "cute Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world really works...
Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world "you shall not have nuclear weapons!"
[Google how that unfolded with: "history/british-nuclear-program]
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
1945 Washington DC: "If you want nukes, develop them yourself. In the meantime, I'll dismantle your empire. What are you going to do about it?"
That's how leverage works.
Simple.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
WW1 was the biggest US "regime change operation" in history.
"If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler."
Winston Churchill, 26th April 1946
That short statement practically has "regime change" written all over it.
That short statement also makes it clear what happens if one removes the gatekeepers (monarchy) of a political system from power, which then opens the door for all kinds of ideologues.
They thought they could throw out the monarchs, and morph Germany into becoming "more like us" (old Roman technique of power), and there would be no consequences.
Whatever they thought, one thing is clear: US think tanks who wrote the 14 Points Speech KNEW they were far enough away from Europe not to have to face any consequences should their own suggestions combined with the invariably following top-down implementations result in blowback (causality).
So what had led Churchill to make such a statement? As part of the 14-Point Plan, Wilson demanded that Germany de-throne Wilhelm II, before any peace talks could begin. The Allies also refused a German delegation as part of the peace talks in 1919. WW1 was the USA's hitherto biggest "regime change operation" (Germany). Because here is what they tell you is history in thousands and thousands of books and docs: the "German people" or "German leaders" were the ones who "forced Wilhelm II into exile, or " forced the autocrats to abdicate because they were angry" or variations of that. Here is what they (usually) don't say (lie by omission): That it was the own side which had previously coerced other German leaders like Max von Baden into forcing the German government out of office, because that was a condition for armistice negotiations to take place.
Here is the timeline of events:
1) Coerce German leaders to topple the current Berlin government.
2) German leaders realizing there was no alternative to stop the war, topple the current government.
3) Omit step 1) for the "narrative of WW1", or pretend it never happened, and then "write history" that pleases the own feelings by simply pinning the flag on the timeline, saying that the history of that event started on "day x".
In order to find out what really happened, an interested history fan would have to delve into very specific books that cover the entire series of events, to find out the details. But, who does that?
From the primary source:
"The President would deem himself lacking in candor did he not point out in the frankest possible terms the reason why extraordinary safeguards must be demanded. Significant and important as the constitutional changes seem to be which are spoken of by the German Foreign Secretary in his note of the 20th of October, it does not appear that the principle of a government responsible to the German people has yet been fully worked out or that any guarantees either exist or are in contemplation that the alterations of principle and of practice now partially agreed upon will be permanent. Moreover, it does not appear that the heart of the present difficulty has been reached. It may be that future wars have been brought under the control of the German people, but the present war has not been; and it is with the present war that we are dealing. It is evident that the German people have no means of commanding the acquiescence of the military authorities of the empire in the popular will; that the power of the King of Prussia to control the policy of the empire is unimpaired; that the determining initiative still remains with those who have hitherto been the masters of Germany. Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action, the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the world do not and cannot trust the word of those who have hitherto been the masters of German policy, and to point out once more that in concluding peace and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany."
Source: International Notes: Diplomatic Notes, Prepared By Allan Westcott, Ph. D., Instructor, U. S. Naval Academy, November 1918 Proceedings Vol. 44/11/189
Washington DC power mongers employ old Roman techniques of power, including the "morphing" of systems which favor the own ideological expansionist goals, and one of these old Roman techniques is divide-and-rule. In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Not only Germany was divided, but also Europe was divided with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in popular narratives composed mostly of "being friends" even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, so by 1945 the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
2
-
2
-
@7135HOLLY Back in the 1990s Tel Aviv was sneakily trying to introduce Apartheid, at the same time South Africa was busy ending it under international pressure. Of course, Israel was (according to imperialist logic) "doing nothing wrong"...
At the time the world was applauding South Africa as it ended Apartheid, and simultaneously the world was applauding Israel's attempt at introducing Apartheid, branding it as just "trying to create peace."
Note, whilst singling out the Palestinians/Arafat as being "unreasonable" and "rejecting the Israeli olive leaf of peace...blah, blah..." as the accepted narrative of the Mainstream Media.
Israel never intended for Palestinians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, "We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [edit: the historical examples being the "Apartheid dependencies," of the "Bantustan"] ... and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines ... The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term ... Jerusalem (would be) united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty ... will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev. We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth."
All the questionable clauses, eluding reality by use of the typical vague political doublespeak, have been highlighted.
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control. What that would have meant, we see today. Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city. Notice how Rabin, commonly held as a dove in politics, never used the term "full sovereign state" when he referred to this "Palestine", but the term "less than a state." Did you spot the use of [Israel's] "natural growth"? Critical question... Where to? Where would Israelis/Zionists "naturally grow" to, if there were equal neighbours, as a balanced power, which could actually stop any such Zionist settler "growth". The Jordan Valley, extends BOTH sides of the Jordan River. Now, I'm sure that was just another slip-up too, of people who don't understand simple geography. Whatever. It is fairly clear what they wanted, and there are historical examples for this: the "pool of cheap labor" within the own borders, as the concept of the "Bantustan" was for the RSA, given a little bit of "independence" to manage some of the own affairs, but de facto/de jure powerless to stop the CONTROLLING power, intended to be Jerusalem, as Jweish capital city with the right to introduce permit laws, etc. It is literally what RSA did with their "Bantustans". Back then the people could not be fooled. They saw through the deceit, and rightfully called it out for what it was: just another Apartheid ploy to avoid the rise of political equals.
Sad reality? Today masses of fools are being mislead into praising Israel's attempted implementation of Apartheid as an attempt at peace, while at the same time denouncing a similar scheme actually implemented by the RSA in stages after WW2, as being bigoted/racist.
Footnote:
Apartheid = the divide-and-rule strategy of power (apart = to seperate = to divide per rulings).
2
-
2
-
2
-
Die größte Gefahr für die Welt sind ideologisch indoktrinierte Systeme, randvoll mit „nützlichen Idioten“, die schon immer die Welt beherrschen wollten.
Suchen Sie in einem Wörterbuch nach dem Begriff „Ideologie“.
Es handelt sich um ein System von Ideen und Idealen, insbesondere um eines, das die Grundlage wirtschaftlicher oder politischer Theorie und Politik bildet.
ALLES davon braucht enorme Unterstützung, um aus der theoretischen Ebene der Dinge auszubrechen, hin zu einer real existierenden Form von MACHT.
Es ist leicht, zum Werkzeug von Ideologen zu werden.
Diese Machthaber predigen aus ihren ideologischen „Blasen“, die „Fern-Seher“ genannt werden, und Millionen verneigen sich vor ihnen, und diese Machthaber haben Millionen dazu gebracht, zu glauben, sie sollten für ihre Ideologie lügen und töten und zu ideologisch indoktrinierten Kriegern werden. Wenn die Ideologie, die sie offen und stolz zur Schau stellen, Millionen tötet, sagen ihre Anführer, dass sich der Tod von 500.000 Kindern „gelohnt“ habe (Madeleine Albright), und dass dies überhaupt keine Auswirkungen habe. Millionen schauen auf solche Todesfälle und zucken nicht einmal mit der Wimper. Sie führen ihr Leben weiter. Millionen jubeln und schätzen ihre Ideologen und lieben Führer. Die Ideologie, für die ihre ideologisch indoktrinierten Anführer offen erklären, dass sie Soldaten zum Töten schicken sollten, ist Demokratie in Verbindung mit Korporatismus, und der Slogan, den sie seit dem Ersten Weltkrieg skandieren, lautet: „Machen Sie die Welt sicher für die Demokratie“. Das größte Beispiel für Doublespeak (George Orwell) aller Zeiten: Eigentlich war es immer die Absicht, „die Welt für US Grosskonzerne sicher zu machen“, und andere Regierungen zu unterwerfen, wie Smedley-Butler bereits vor 100 Jahren verriet.
Seltsam, dass die Bibel, die diesen Ideologen am Herzen liegt, nicht sagt, dass man „lügen, stehlen und töten“ solle, sondern dass ihre Anführer sie auffordern, zu töten, um die Demokratie zu verbreiten.
Eines dieser Axiome muss falsch sein.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ChangingHorizons 100% agreed.
They should unite, finally bury the 1,000 years of hatred and slimey backstabbing, and chuck Washington DC out.
Note: "should"
Will they?
Probably not, because they are a bunch of "Euroweanies" easily divided by emotions.
History has already repeated.
Sorry for a kinda long-winded explanation, but they probably never unite because it is too easy to divide them.
In case you're interested in finding out why: From NATOs website.
"NATO Allies welcome Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO and they stand by the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance. Decisions regarding NATO membership are up to each individual applicant and the 30 NATO Allies. No one else. Russia has no right to intervene and cannot veto this process. Like every country, Ukraine has the sovereign right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security, one that Russia has also signed up to, including through the Helsinki Final Act (1975), the Charter of Paris (1990), the NATO-Russia Founding Act (1997) and the Charter for European Security (1999)."
Sounds "fair", right?
It is literally how "divide and conquer" works.
Seriously?
The "alpha" graciously "allows" (sic.) the little powerless "beta" to determine world affairs?
It is literally "history repeating" in "rivers of blood".
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...bye, bye..."
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct FACT: they did almost nothing to put their money where their mouths were.
Step 1: Polish leaders first baited by their own dreams.
Step 2: Then pwomises made.
Step 3: Then sold out, when they DID next to NOTHING to save "poor Poles".
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...bye, bye..."
Step 1: Czech leaders first baited by their own dreams of "historical gweatness".
Step 2: Then pwomises made.
Step 3: Then sold out, when they DID NOTHING to save "poor Czechoslovakia".
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct dates on the timeline, when THEY DID NOTHING.
The Ukraine the last 10 or so years?
First baited with "NATO membership" (2007/2008), and "being one of us" (EU)...
Then pwomises made, to "stand firm" and "we'll be there for you"...
Then sold out, and today our leaders are DOING next to nothing.
History repeating almost word for word.
The "price" of "division".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS/GLOBALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS/MILITARISTS. Their branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
For hundreds of years the London/British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations, especially "little nations". Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed from dark archives: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images").
The photographs look a lot like Coventry, don't they?
Kagoshima, Canton, Sebastopol (Krim War), and and dozens of others. Such fun to have own leaders coining the term "Copenhagenization" to mock the children they burnt alive while cheering on the historical heroes committing such acts. Victims? Who cares about victims? Right?
From wiki: "Oh, that example of Copenhagen has worked wonders in the world!...I (would) like to see the name of that city become a verb... 'cities will be copenhagenized' is an excellent phrase." William Cobbet
Excellent indeed.
His wish would one day become true, long after he was dead and gone, but surely not according to his dreams...
So around the world they went, turning towns and cities and entire kingdoms into "mere verbs".
Such great fun, bomb(ard)ing everybody else, but not getting bomb(ard)ed oneself.
Terror bombing countless towns and villages as the weapons improved, but the practice remained: creating uncounted victims because nobody cared enough to even count. Later, in Mesopotamia, and Aden, the Sudan, and then euphemistically terming this "Air Policing". Makes you think that terror bombing people unable to defend themselves against superior technology, is really just your friendly neighborhood Bobby keeping the peace, lol...
When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exciting it was to "dodge bullets". The locals defending their own? Mowing down natives armed with spears, with machine guns? Pfffft. Who gives a...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps ("penal colonies" for cheap labor), and then burning evidence of crimes right through into the 1960s (google Operation Legacy).
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down and V-2s rained down on their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
Not so great having own cities and streets turned into mere verbs, right?
William Cabbot, and other British leaders' heartfelt desire to turn cities into mere verbs finally came true.
Londonization, Liverpoolization, Southamptonization, Hullization, Doverization...Coventrization.
Boooooo hoooooooo
The most based "reaped as sown" ever...
Then, all of a sudden, everybody was soooooooo tired of all that "Empire"-stuff.
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they would never forget.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global "balance of power", to avoid a few million gaining at the expense of billions, as the USA/collective West has done these past 500 years.
I'm sure Chinese and Russian leaders will imnediately agree to this, and our US/collective West will do as they've always done: pretend to wish to "sign up for it" overtly and ostentatiously (doves), but use deception to torpedo such attempts of global equillibrium covertly (hawks).
Good cop (neolibs), bad cop (neocon).
Divide-and-rule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Churchill was a terrible strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created *facts*. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Usually in debates like these it doesn't take long for the emotional argumentation and logical fallacies to set in.
For example, the "...but if we hadn't bombed city centers, how much stronger would Germany have been?"
Easy answer? Not much.
Historians who have studied air warfare in WW2 have already concluded this long ago.
For example Munsen, Kenneth/German Aircraft of WW2 ISBN 623.74'6'0943 p. 13
"It has been estimated that Allied raids between mid-1943 and early-1945 cost the Luftwaffe some 18,000 aircraft in lost production. On the other hand, if these aircraft had been received, shortages of aircrew, fuel, and munitions would have severely limited their effective use." [end quote]
It wasn't as much the bombing which limited German industry, but the lack of resources, especially oil.
Every raid, and every sortie flown in excess of what was really necessary against a few key industries (again, esp. oil targets), was a waste of Allied airmen and a waste of own resources.
Every bomber downed with the intent to kill "Oma Schickelgruber" ostensibly "in the way of valid targets", an exposed lie, was a needless waste of own lives.
Every Allied soldier who was sent to "save Stalin", was equally wasted.
The price for such folly would be paid after the war.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage.
Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating families. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Never a "price tag" for own actions...
Right?
WRONG
Brits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends".
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"...
And after the war ended?
They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946).
Did they ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not.
Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next.
Hop, hop, hop...into extinction.
Sad...
A "nation" which needs to bomb women and kids to "have hope" or inspiration even during hard times, does not deserve to "rule the world".
The post-WW2 bankrupcy was not only financial, but also moral...
Good riddance to "ruling the world" then.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can deny that it exists, because just like gravity, it cannot be seen.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like gravity, one can ignore that it exists, yet benefit from it at the same time.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like gravity exposes its own existence, by simple observation, anyone can observe the existence of divide and rule...
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like giant vacuum cleaners, it creates multiple systems on multiple levels, each with its own benefactors, and sucks of the hard labor from a base, and funnels it to the top.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that 99% of the participants who are involved, are blissfully unaware how they are actors in a game and can claim innocence while defending the systems at the same time.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can mask it behind innocuous policies, like meritocracy, and still claim to be doing the best politics possible.
The same way one can plausibly explain how one is a state of isolationism, yet be peculiarly in a state of constant interventionalism and war at the same time: invisible magic...***
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can plausibly deny its existance, yet constantly profit from it.
The cool thing about divide and rule, is that at the very top, the systems of empire, it creates a giant vacuum cleaner that funnels power to the top. "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. Within this framework the role of France, Germany and England of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations. . ."
The fruits of hard consistent invisible labor.
Divide and rule.
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world." Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire. - Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
The fruits of hard consistent unseen effects.
Divide and rule.
***With regards to Interventionalism: the USA was supposed to be Isolationist: John Quincy Adams delivered a speech in 1821 stating the USA's founding foreign policy of non-intervention and the US government's premise not to get entangled in or meddle in the affairs of another state. Adams issued the dire warning: Should America ever abandon her founding principle of non-interventionism, she would become "the dictatress of the world."
Just like Eisenhower issued a dire warning about Military Industrial Complexes, everybody knows how effective such warnings are.
The two-tier approach: get some people to say one thing, while others do the opposite...
Divide and rule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Everything explained here, is part of a top-down divide-and-rule strategy of power.
To the outside divider of unity, it does not matter how divisions appear in a neigboring region or on another continent, since the dividers' only aim, is to avoid unity in a region/another continent. When you hear or read concepts like "avoid" or "fragmentation" it is always a part of a top-down divide-and-rule strategy of power, to avoid unity from formating elsewhere. This avoidance of unity elsewhere is implemented using a variety of political means, incl. but not limited to violence and war (Clausewitz as "war simply the continuation of politics"). To leverage these divides outsiders create local tools to implement more division, or "buck catchers" to defend the own power base (ratchet principle).
Historically, the MO is always the same:
Once an intransient continent/region has been created for oneself, the hegemony tries to implement transient regions for all others. [Today there are only two continents with sole hegemonies: North America (single hegemony, weak neighbors) and Australia (single hegemony, but economically insufficient to "rule the world")].
At three key points in history (around 1900, just after WW1, and around the year 2000), Europeans failed to create an intransient region for themselves, and therefore will remain transient for the foreseeable future. All the other continents apart from N. Am and Australia are "transient" and therefore easy to divide, "up for grabs" so to speak, by use of age-old strategies to create, and deepen existing divides.
From here, the basis of their own unity, they set out to divide all others.
Outside dividers have been instigating in Eurasia for more than a century, and inside Russia again after the 1990s, made them the enemy of Washington DC, London, Paris, and all imperialist nations, who wished to rule by division FROM OUTSIDE.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MPessa84 I think we agree that museums are in a different category, and that their aim is to educate (history, natural history, science, etc.) or entertain (art, music museums, etc.).
Yes, I'd prefer there to be more "direct democracy" especially concerning issues like like this.
"Direct democracy" is of course very focused. It can also be very local, and centered on a specific issue.
The issue (for example "opening hours for shops, or as in this case the presence of a statue) can be brought forward, the people can vote on it, and action taken according to the majority consensus.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The distorters of history lie about everything. Even the Bible they claim to love so much....
When one does wrong, it doesn't matter how one justifies these wrongs.
Or, the true meaning of the Biblical "reap the whirlwind".
In the Bible (Hosea), Israel allied with the devil (Assyria), rather than trust in God, and subsequently lost their worldly "empire" (Hosea).
The biblical wisdom of not allying with evil (Stalin/communism) has been distorted over time, to become a justification for own actions ("reap the whirlwind" = punishment).
A fallacy.
It is only half the story, or "lying by omission".
Because "evil" has even less scrupples than oneself, and therefore allying with evil will mean that one will get screwed over by the devil one has allied with.
Read Hosea.
Even if one is an atheist, these wisdoms are based on thousands of years of human observations.
By own admission, GB allied with the devil (Stalin), and then set off to destroy the German people, rather than letting the two devils (Hitler and Stalin) "slug it out" to mutual destruction on the Eastern Front, while concentrating on the own priorities (Western Desert, Battle of the Atlantic, etc.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stevemitz4740 My first 2 comments were to the OP.
But I'm ok with anybody answering them.
Throughout history, gender has been fluid. Joan of Arc proves it. Did you know that "men were women" and "women were men" in literally all cultures throughout history?
It is in fact the 300-400 years or so, that it turned "abnormal", as the Catholic church burned people alive they deemed "witches" (basically, everybody who didnt bow to the dogma of the church, or literally the most extreme form of dictatorship you can imagine).
So.
Today.
As some say those "feminazis with their short cut hair, in-your-face" with their logic.
I once saw one, confronted by tatooed wannabe tough guy. It turned out sje served, and the first thing she said to him was "I'm in the military, defending your right to insult me".
Precious.
The debate was over :-)
Just accept people the way they are, as foreseen by the Declaration of Independence: the unalienable right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It is in the interests of the strategists in the USA/collective West that Asians fight Asians in Asia, just like European Slavs fight European Slavs in Europe, and Africans fight Africans in Africa, so all end up exhausted and easy to rule over.
This is divide-and-rule.
-----------------------
May all those future prospective "best little friends of America" take a very long, and very good, and very deep look at the Ukraine today. Greenland, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Armenia, Georgia, Baltic States...and, and, and...
This could be YOUR leaders in a few years time, begging the minion plea to "give us the tools, and we will fight". Just remember, that if you don't deliver upon the prospect of "extending Russia" or becoming that next "unsinkable aircraft carrier" (aka staging area) or "extending China" for American interests. Millions dead, casualties, or refugees, but Washington DC is salivating about your resources, and what's "in it for me" with a POTUS more interested in ratings. Donald "this is going to be great television" Trump as supreme ruler, surrounding himself with sycophants.
This is divide-and-rule.
My apologies to America's sane half, and we will know you from how you speak, but the rest of the planet must rid themselves of the outside influence of these manipulators at the top of the USA or forever lose.
Take a good long hard look at "poor little Ukraine".
Do you want to step into the shoes of Ukrainians?
If you get to the stage when your leaders have to "beg for tools", then you are already the tool of the steering/meddling/managing outsiders, and your leaders have failed to establish and implement and timely balance of power. This will then lead to exploitation. Any "general/admiral" who does not get this, does not deserve the title.
This is divide-and-rule.
When you are a little nation between the "devil" (Black Legend MSM manipulation) and the "deep blue sea" (Atlanticist powers of the USA/collective West" with their world rule intentions), it is easy to see who wishes to spread fear.
This is divide-and-rule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Correct.
French leaders were dumb as a pile of bricks concerning geopolitics and geostrategy.
Because after the "won" WW1, it was the USA and GB which divided the "rule of the world" amongst themselves.
According to Mahan, those who rule the oceans, rule the world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan
France finished WW1 with a mighty army, but was not granted the "rule" of the World Island with this army (see Heartland Theory).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
Unattainable for the French economy anyway, since according to one historian France had a "giant appetite, but had rotten teeth" (meaning that the willpower of their elites to rule and dominate was not matched by the economy or political landscape which was a shambles after WW1).
In other words, London had the "leverage" to control the destiny of the French Empire (naval power), but in return France did not have the leverage to control the destiny of the British Empire (land forces).
A bad deal, in my books...
France relinquished it's position as a first class naval power in return for "a deal" to dominate or share a few regions (Balkans, ME , Central Europe), but not the geostrategically vital Heartland (aka the "pivot" of Eurasia from which the destruction/dismantling of the British Empire by land forces was possible).
According to London, if London could not rule this herself, or by proxy, it would be divided or "balanced " amongst several rivals.
France allied herself to another power which could simply hop across the channel if a war didn't turn out as expected...
2
-
Yet, once the "unfortunate WW1" (which French leaders played a large part in starting and expanding) was "won"...
My school French isn't the best, so I copied and pasted this from another YT poster, in case you can read French:
"Pour la politique secrète de réarmement de l'Allemagne, d'après les archives (partiellement numérisées dans google books) des services secrets français du 2e Bureau, l'Allemagne avait été prise en flagrant délit de détention et d'exportation d'armes chimiques en 1921 à l'Espagne, alors que ça lui était interdit.
L'Allemagne a semble t'il aussi fait une action de guerre économique contre le franc depuis l'Espagne, alors qu'ils étaient supposé être "écrasés par le diktat".
On aurait pu arrêter la stratégie hostile des 1er allemands militaristes qui allait servir Hitler à cette date là.
Et tous les petits accords des allemands militaristes avec les autres pays, la Yougoslavie, l'URSS,... étaient aussi plus ou moins connu des services secret français et d'après les rapports les anglais savaient aussi.
Quant on lit dans les rapports des services secrets que les anglais faisait du lobbying anti-français dans le Monde, c'est pas cool.
Et la France va en réunion diplomatique avec les autres pays, la France dit que l'Allemagne se réarme secrètement, viole le traité de désarmement, tout le monde fait comme si c'était faux, alors que tout le monde est complice ou témoin du réarmement allemand. L'allemagne avait de l'argent pour faire des recherches en armement interdits et des guerres économiques secrètes, mais pas pour payer d'indemnités de la guerre, xd."
(Waard la France)
In a nutshell, French leaders whining to London about Germany re-arming, even though...uhm...they knew why London wasn't going to do anything about it.
London's policy for the continent was called "Balance of Power".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power#:~:text=Balance%20of%20power%2C%20in%20international,power%20of%20the%20other%20side.
That meant that London had unilaterally decided that it would be "the balancer" of power on the continent.
With Berlin, Moscow and Vienna (temporarily) out of the picture, this policy did not favor a re-emergence of an overpowering Paris or Warsaw.
This was a well-known fact at the time: the British admiral-in-chief, more or less expressed it this way to his French counterpart in February 1919 when the discussions on the first treaty of naval limitation began (they couldn't believe it).
Discussions which have been archived and scanned at the archives at the Quai d'Orsay
If Paris did not agree with the attitude of the lords in London, they should have looked for a more powerful continental ally than the weak states in the Little Entente, or the economically impotent Warsaw....
So the symbol of world domination (Navies and Battleships) was decided on in Washington 5-5-3-2-2....
A mere "2" for France, making it quite clear what Washington and London thought about France's position in the world after WW1.
They, the new rulers, gave themselves a "5".
A mere "2" for France, who had scraps of diplomatic "world rule" (Balkans, Central Europe, and the ME) thrown at her, and who had leaders who thought "walls" (Maginot) and encirclement of Berlin would protect her forever and ever in a military sense...
What was needed was the wisdom of "a de Gaulle", allying himself to an arch enemy, "an Adenauer".
Unfortunately, it took another world war, more endless death and suffering, the collapse of the British Policy of Balance of Power at the end of WW2, and last not but least...the threat of mutual destruction by red hordes storming through the Fulda Gap and not stopping until they reached Paris, before wiser heads came together and decided to bury the hatchet...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
How our leaders avoid "avoiding war", and then fabricate a racket...in three easy steps.*
Step 1: Engineer a situation, or take on a standpoint one would never accept as "acceptable", if placed in the same situation oneself, and refuse to budge. Ignore all warnings.
Step 2: Watch on as the situation deteriorates. Find a few friendly states, who see things the same way, but refuse to budge. Send around a few good individuals, who will try their best, keep on gnoring all further warnings. As "crisis" turns to gloom, do as little as you can possibly get away with: especially, don't sign anything worded in such a way that it would actually avoid war.
Step 3: When the guns start firing: Here comes the most important step: do as the Bible says (lol) and point the finger everywhere else, and wash own hands in innocence (using the easy "Pontius Pilate"-way out).
From Goodreads quotes: "Of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor bloke on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." ― Hermann Goering
Fear is the most powerful of all emotions. Of course Goering knew how Berlin had fabricated consent for the invasion of Poland, because he was on the inside. He knew the slogan chanters would point fingers and chant on command: "Poland attacked first", and "We are just going to save poor oppressed people" as (quote the average response) "shown on newsreels", or "Great Britain and France prodded Poland on to attack us, but we were quicker" (sic.). It didn't even matter what slogans were implanted in the brains of the chanters. Constant repitition and the same messaging as suitable priming and conditioning: the leadership might as well have said "Poland had WMDs and wants to rule the world.", and a suitable small but audible minority will obey. Of course he was not expressing an opinion, but making an observation: he knew how gullible many people are, and the best way to make people even more gullible was to convince them they were better than others. And the squibbling, hectoring, are the easiest to fool of all.
2
-
2
-
His "service to king and country" came with a price tag: The end of his beloved Empire...
Looooooong before WW2, an elitist club of insider London lords he served, had set off to set Europe up for failure...
And they repeated it TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage.
Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Never a "price tag" for own actions and inactions...
Right?
WRONG
Bwits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends".
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"...
And after the war ended?
The "winners" became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers" when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946). Did they ask the London lords who were busy desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not.
Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next.
Hop, hop, hop...into extinction.
Sad...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had the global influence of the Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"), and all his US/collective Western "best friends" would happily let them fight "to the last Ukrainian/last bullet."
For the "divider," dividing a region of the globe, sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. The USA could afford to wait. Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Do you wish to contribute a small share to force Israel into a negotiated peace process?
Do you wish to see these "politically connected" finally stand trial for their actions?
Are you American? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from their 800 military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not perfect, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions.
It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
Snowflake time is coming to an end.
The whining about freedom of speech is thinning out.
Strange, how few comment on the core message Hasan made.
Us meddling in their world.
As Robert Kennedy Jr. notes about the history of the ME:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster
So who was it that went to their world, removed their moderate leaders, and replaced them with religiously indoctrinated nitwits? Correct. Our religiously indoctrinated nitwits who wanted to turn people into tools....lmfao...
The USA absolutely loooooves Jihadists, as long as they don't act against the USA.
Or, that Biblical logic: "the people shall reap what your leaders have sown"...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
British leaders ended the war under the rather childish delusion that their "best fwiends" were going to let them become a nuclear power in 1945.
The question then, why it took GB 7 years after WW2, to carry out their 1st nuclear test, even though the technology had already been developed by international scientist (also British) before 1945.
Because its the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and "cute Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world really works...
Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world "you shall not have nuclear weapons!"
[Google how that unfolded with: "history/british-nuclear-program]
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
1945 Washington DC: "If you want nukes, develop them yourself. In the meantime, I'll dismantle your empire. What are you going to do about it?"
That's how leverage works.
Rule Britannia, replaced by the American Century.
Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana.
Why didn't Washington DC/The American Century give their "special friends" the secret of nuclear bombs in 1945?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
„Offensiver Realismus“.
„Defensiver Realismus.“
Seit 1990 befindet sich Russland in der Defensive.
Nach den Ende des Kalten Krieges, ist der Albion ist auf dem Vormarsch, und hat seine Werkzeuge (Kollektiver Westen, von dem auch bald die Schweitz ein Teil wird) im Schach.
Richard Black, ehemaliger US-Senator: „Es ist uns egal, wie viele Ukrainer sterben. Wie viele Frauen, Kinder, Zivilisten, Soldaten sterben werden. Es ist wie ein wichtiges Fußballspiel, und wir wollen gewinnen.“
Sie sind das Spiel für diese Leute.
Sie interessieren sich nicht für Sie oder ihre Familie in weit entfernte Regionen der Welt. Ihre Machtsysteme sind auf den Vormasch.
Sparen Sie sich eine Diskussion mit den ideologisch indoktrinierten und auf die Brust trommelnden Dogmatikern mit ihrem „Papierkram“. Die meisten Vertreter dieser Art sind völlig argumentresistent. Es ist Zeitverschwendung. Deshalb greifen sie jeden sofort persönlich an, der es wagt, ihre heiligen Erzählungen und Glaubenssysteme auch nur kritisch zu hinterfragen, und nennen jeden, der die Millionen von Toten auf den Marschrouten ihrer von Menschen geschaffenen Systeme in Frage stellt, „eine Gefahr“. Diese Art gedeiht in großen, geldgetriebenen Horden, und diese Systeme haben rund um die Uhr Zeit, sich für jedes Argument eine lahme Ausrede auszudenken, um von sehr einfacher Logik und Vernunft abzulenken. Die älteste Strategie der Welt: „Was du nicht willst, dass man dir tut, das füg auch keinem anderen zu.“ Befolgen Sie dieses Prinzip, und die Kausalkette der Wirkungen führt zurück zur Grundursache jedes menschlichen Konflikts (vielen Dank an @dinachdt1498).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If anybody wishes to know what is in store for the EU and other American "best fwiends" after 2025, look back in history to what the USA did to the British Empire after WW2, when it was bankrupt and weak. The first victim of the American Century was not as proclaimed and the generally accepted narrative of history, that "it was the USSR" (sic./Truman Doctrine, "Iron Curtain"-narrative), but the British Empire, which was cut down to size turning London from "British lion" to "poodle" in around 25 years, using economic warfare.
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500. My shoutout to the original author whose site is since removed.]
This is divide-and-rule.
A blueprint for how one Albion deceived the other, to become the "next Albion".
The transfer of power from one control freak system to the next.
Pure unfettered opportunism, via steered and implemented division of others for own gain..
After 1945 the USA used its own might as hammer and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). By 1945, Stalin (Moscow), smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and witnessing the collapse of virtually every other European power, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2. It was overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has self-centred imperialist aims and goals , one eventually destroys all alternatives, and when you try to defend everything, you'll eventually "defend nothing" (Friedrich the Great, re. a false allocation of clout and resources, in grand strategy and geopolitics).
That was preceded in geopolitics by a Washington DC shift away from a global non-interventionalist stand on international relations, towards a more active engagement in world affairs and global expansion which incl. European affairs (the study of "Offensive Realism") which started around the year 1900, symbolized by the Spanish-American War (1898). Something London lords happily signed up for with the "Great Rapprochement" (aligned and associated "friends only, no obligations", in the "interests"-reality of imperialism). London must have thought the good times were coming, alongside their "new friends" and making the rules for everybody else. Two Albions getting happily engaged...
What could possibly go wrong putting your trust in Washington DC?
AROUND THE YEAR 2000
In reality, your "friends" in capitalism over the Atlantic can't wait for history to repeat, to wait until Europe is weak again, exhausted from war, down in power, ready for the carving knives of OUTSIDE imperialism, all by the "friends" who are standing by and standing down to enter and benefit from the division and destruction they themselves greatly contributed to after the 1990s.
This is divide-and-rule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Most of our history is a collective of ideas, reached by "common consensus".
"Common consensus" is a cognitive bias, because most individuals simply assume that conclusions once drawn by experts in the field of historical studies are valid, because a common consensus by a majority, or smart educated scholars as once reached, is always valid.
That line of thinking, is however fallacious.
The most common cognitive biases which have slipped into the "history" known as popular- or narrative history, or have even reached the status as "beyond question" because too many believe it is "true", are:
- Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the majority, or appeal to the masses, or the argument from consensus in which the "consensus" has a HOME BASE advantage in the own sphere of influence)
- Genetic fallacy (discounting a theory that sounds unnatural based on its source, creating the "I need more evidence"-crowd who ALWAYS "need more evidence" regardless of any amount of evidence already provided, and who can simply not see where they fit into the DIVIDE ET IMPERA-setup of the planet)
- Ipse dixit (aka "because I said so myself" it must be true)
- Cherry picking data, incl. but specifically "emotionally-laden dates on a timeline" (thereby suppressing all evidence which contradicts the own convictions, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence)
- Group attribution error (assuming that the individual represents entire groups with similar attributes like culture, language, ethnicity, etc.)
- Invincible ignorance fallacy (aka pig-headedness, is a deductive fallacy of circularity by ignoring any evidence given and related to the concept of "dogma")
- Hostile attribution bias (is the tendency to interpret others' behaviours as having hostile intent, even when the behaviour is ambiguous or benign. For example, an empire with high levels of hostile attribution bias may interpret intentions to "balance powers" as agreed upon by common consensus for example the Concert of Europe, or as the "pre-selected others/outgroup trying to rule the world"-narrative)
- Implicit stereotype (pre-reflective attribution of particular qualities of outgroup members)
- Reactive devaluation (occurs when a proposal is devalued if it originates from an antagonist, resulting in "arguing for the sake of arguing")
- Correlation does not imply causation (events which occur concurrently or in sequence, are not necessarily the result of each other)
- Dysrationalia (fill up the "mindware gap" with fallacious reasoning or cognitive biases, and even intelligent people end up as "losers")
- Madman theory ("play" crazy as a scare tactic. Wilhelm II or Hitler were most likely not more sociopathic and/or psychopathic than many of our own "soft spoken" leaders in positions of power, but simply "played" the role as a deterrence strategy or "scare tactic")
- Emotive conjugation (a rhetorical technique used to create an intrinsic bias towards or against a piece of information. Bias is created by using the emotional connotation of a word to prime a response from the audience by creating a loaded statement. Examples are the use of "freedom fighter" for a favoured cause, and "terrorist" for a cause opposing the own)
Finally, the Law of Triviality (Northcote Parkinson, 1957) states that people within a large ingroup often give disproportionate weight to trivial issues (like whether "Hitler had one ball"), meaning that time is wasted on trivialities which distracts from what is really important, or indicative. When you waste time on trivialities ... "you become what you give your attention to." (to quote Epictetus)
Notice how people argue, or what they value, and this provides data with regards to the "arguers/finger pointers" in general.
The above is all partially copied from wiki, then edited, so a shoutout to the original editors and authors.
The US/collective Western "history" is mostly fake, a collection of stories aimed at creating warm fluffy feelings within the "ingroup", but these are mainly "lies agreed upon" (Napoleon Bonaparte).
Create an equal power.
If not, they will walk all over you.
Good luck.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
Elsewhere, wars were instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, leading to disunity in the world, for the advantage of the dividers, in the USA.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power, or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power.
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In a recent interview Zelensky admitted that his friends, that
"They wanted a long war [Ukraine]"
The Atlanticists, whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from waring states) or if there was any danger of unity formating in Europe/Eurasia.
World War 1 (Seven Years War)
World War 2 (Napoleonic Wars)
World War 3 (Great War/WW1)
World War 4 (World War 2)
“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.” — Henry Kissinger (attr.)
The beauty of history, is that the control freaks of history tell you exactly what they aim to do.
Whether Kissinger actually said this or not, is not important. What is important is that it is one of those age-old truisms known to the average history fan as the siege of towns and fortresses, as the naval blockade (military strategy) as technology improved, or in modern times the political/economic sanctions, all with a host of variations as our world became more and more complex.
When these few have the money, they CONTROL the resources, and that includes human beings all over the globe as potential proxies as "human resources".
It's an old strategy. Divide-and-rule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
2
-
So Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The cause of the Korean War stemmed from an immoral decision by the "winners" of WW2 to "carve up" Korea like war loot. A completely random line was drwan on a map...as if history had not shown up to that point how "drawing lines in the sand/map" could backfire, leading to years of unrests, revolutions, and even war....
Back to the Potsdam, and other WW2 conferences....
Commie crook Stalin was handed over one half of Koreans, obviously, considering his splendid history of human rights and democratic values (ROTFL) he was expected to implement democracy here, like in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and everywhere else the "democratic" and "freedom loving" (LMFAO) commies had overrun territory...
Goes to show what happens if basic human rights are not respected, and people are treated like war loot.
Causality is a bitch, when crooks are appeased....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Meanwhile....
After the war the USA planned to crush the weakened British Empire between the "hammer" of US global power, and the "anvil" of SU's continental European might.
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), (§§§footnote) the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed." SOURCE: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive
US strategist in these think tanks lay out the scheme of what was going to be the new post-war reality, as a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" for the USA to control. Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under US supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.)
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." Note, all words in quotes were actual words used IN THIS OFFICIAL US DOCUMENT, and the thesis and its quoted sources can all be downloaded for free, from the www, and using these key words provided for your search engine.
---------------------------------
After around 1940, ... (quote) "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident (§§§footnote) – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. *Within this framework the role of France, Germany and ENGLAND of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations..."
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world."
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.", Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
2
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was peace, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces and walks off wit GAIN, when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
>>>
The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
>>>
The people of the Americas, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people into "ingroups". In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the USA's power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS. Eden was a status quo divided by lies and deceit. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the two Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly are two cheeks of the same gold-plated hind which sets out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, is the mirror of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets and becomes successful it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances.
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
It's divide-and-rule today, and it was divide-and-rule 20 years ago, it was divide-and-rule 50 years ago, it was the same strategy 100 years ago, and 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the locals were too weak/divided to unite.
2
-
2
-
2
-
London considered itself the "balancer of powers", and had no intention of having her hands tied re. the way they intended to fight in any "next great war", whichever way it unfolded, whoever "started it", or whatever the causes and reasons for such war could be (no hindsight, since of course nobody knew there would be a war in 1914: but "policy" was "policy" regardless).
London had no intention of using the diplomatic means realistically at London's disposal to limit the risk of a war breaking out, by attempting to alleviate the tension between the three powers in question (Germany/France/Russia). It suited the London lords just fine that Germany was wedged in between GB's main historical imperialist rivals for territory and gain (Russia and France), and the lords had no intention of sacrificing the potential situation that all continental powers, engaged in a "total war", would end up "mutually exhausted", thereby strengthening the grip a little nation of 40 million people had on world affairs ("weight"). Of course, if everybody else ended up "totally exhausted" and "totally demoralized", one's own "power"/"leverage" would automatically rise respective to others.
Of course, for politicians who considered the presence of an opposing army in Belgium as a threat, as Casus Belli, or a "pistol pointing at the heart of London", the fact that Russian soldiers were less than 100 miles from Berlin, and of great worry (two-front war) to Berlin, is pure hypocrisy.
Even a simple neutrality accord or non-aggression pact between London and Berlin would have taken a great burden off Berlin's shoulders, since a war (any war threatening the balance of power) would have automatically included GB/Empire.
Berlin was confident of being able to repulse any French/Russian attack (two-front war), but with GB thrown into the deal as the self-proclaimed "balancer of powers", it would have to be a "short war" through Belgium (note: "in strategy" or "an explanation", not to be confused with "apologia" or "sympathy for invading armies" for which there is none on my part).
A pre-war neutrality agreement or non-aggresion pact between London and Berlin would have meant Berlin could return to the pre-1905 situation (no single contingency plan, aka the so-called "Schlieffen Plan" only, but rather multiple war plans adapted to expected circumstances as had existed prior to 1913), comfortable in mastering any potential Russian or French aggression should such aggression ever arise. Lastly, with any form of long-term mutually beneficial treaty/alliance/accord in place and ratified, Germany would also not have needed a bigger navy.
History is not set in stone, and any positive changes along the way would have effected events on the timeline.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@FultonEagle1948 Thank you.
Sadly, WW2 became unavoidable because Hitler and the Nazis would have pushed and pushed until something snapped....
WW1 was entirely avoidable.
Wilhelm II tried countless times to get London to sign some kind of treaty, non-aggression pact, or Entente, but London refused.
The refusal was predetermined by policy.
Germany was already "the enemy" on the continent, and took over this "role" from France after uniting in 1871 and industrialising the 20 or so years after that.
During those years (say, 1890 to 1900), an Entente between London and Berlin was very much a possibility. The elites of both sides, and the people in Germany and GB shared friendly relations on all levels.
It had little to do with "the naval arms race", or "gruffy Willhelm being an assh*le" (sic.)
The Germans built an own navy after 1898 because London refused a treaty, or non-aggression pact, not the other way around.
2
-
@FultonEagle1948 By coincidence, I read an interesting article about WC just this morning.
https://mises.org/library/rethinking-churchill
Apparently, he "swung with the wind" and would concentrate on the job at hand. If "the job" demanded of him to be a "socialist", he'd be "a socialist", until the next "job" came along.
Then, he'd slip into the role of "conservative", "imperialist", or whatever he thought best.
IMO, he also lost sight of the "big picture" though.
He might have thought that "a deal with Stalin" (aka "Percentages Agreement") would save the British Policy of Balance of Powers on the continent.
But he was wrong.
Stalin had his own agenda, and figured out that Washington would never support the start of another war in Europe (Operation Unthinkable), and Stalin tore up the Percentages Agreement (minus Greece), and took the rest 100%.
The Limitrophe States which had up to then protected the British Empire eroded away, and the world turned into a 2-power system.
"Empire" was rubbed to dust and eroded away between these 2 during the Cold War, when GB was a mere shadow of former glory.
2
-
The political spectrum has 4 axis, not only 2.
Only those who wish to oversimplify things, would ever state "2 axis".
Far right authoritarianism is called "Fascism", whilst far left authoritarianism is called "Communism" and variations like Stalinism, Maoism, etc.
"Lazy" is pointing out the similarities, whilst ignoring the big differences for example concerning private property, tolerating religion, land ownership (farms), etc., etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So Bomber "do our worst" Harris set off to flatten Germany, with a policy called Area Bombing, thereby ruining the financial foundation of the British Empire in the process.
Hadn't he heard of THE AMERICAN CENTURY?
Maybe they didn't have google back then.
Too bad...
So what was the "return on investment" for the Allied war machine?
What was the value of a policy of killing "enemy" civilians, and sending out bombers to level city centers?
How much bang for the buck did it result in.
Google, download and read:
BRITAIN 1939 – 1945: THE ECONOMIC COST OF STRATEGIC BOMBING
One can spend a few hours reading this....OR...I'll condense it into a few short lines:
The same people who started terror bombing civilians on a grand scale in Mesototamia in the 1920s (Churchill/Portal/Harris) thought that all one needed to do to "win" was to scale up the terror.
[Google: bbc(dot)com/news/magazine-29441383]
End effect = they "bombed "empire" into financial oblivion, with little real effect for the soldiers on the front lines.
The resources wasted (between a third and half, depending on the criterea used) on "flattening Germany" during WW2 was not available to stand up to Communism and The American Century after the war was over and down went London's interests.
From rulers of the world in 1900, down to 3rd fiddle after WW2, all in less than a lifetime.
Time for others to "rule the world".
Gee, thanks Arthur "while torching with glee, my fwiends deceived me" Harris.
We're all soooooo gweatfull....
2
-
2
-
F
Harris was a liar. He lied to the British people about the effectiveness of Area Bombing (aka the policy of killing 'enemy' population).
Although he was fighting on the better side (against utter evil), he nevertheless allowed himself and his talents as organizer and a leader of men to be misused for a policy which had the direct intention of sending soldiers to kill civilians.
He should have refused, and it would have had no impact on the Allied war effort whatsoever.
After the war was over, he became extremely unpopular, almost an outcast. He lied to the public in an effort of justifying the many deaths (not only civilians, but also the 55,000 British and Commonwealth airmen).
One blatant lie I personally researched a few years ago concerned Harris' claim that "Bomber Command destroyed a third of all submarines before they were completed".
Here is the truth: Gröner's book (ISBN 3-7637-6215-9) on the Kriegsmarine lists all German ships ordered during the war, incl. the roughly 1,400 submarines ordered or started (1162 completed during WW2). On pages 85-100 , the book lists every single submarine, and it's fate. Only 58 German submarines were destroyed as a result of air raids, and only a portion of these were destroyed by the RAF "area bombing" city centers, with "spillover" sometimes hitting something of value
The overwhelming majority was by US daylight precision bombing raids.
Now, that a far cry from the "one third" claimed by Harris for his Bomber Command.
Anybody who bases his opinion on Area Bombing, according to a lie, is therefore misguided.
On top of that, Harris also stole credit where credit was due, from the airmen of the USAAF. Like a thief, he simply claimed that his orders had played a huge role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, by stealing the hard labor of others.
He simply claimed the destruction caused by US precision bombing as his own, and used it to justify fighting a war on civilians.
So?
Should we admire liars and thieves?
2
-
Nobody wins a war. Some just lose less.
As always, there is the big picture that goes far beyond ruins in Berlin and Dresden...
A big picture of geostrategy is hardly ever the focus of documentaries.
In end effect, Churchill sold British interests and the British Empire, because he couldn't see the big picture and didn't understand the policy of Balance of Power on the continent, as a tool to protect the British Empire.
The big picture was that there were forces in the USA whose goal it was to bring about the end of the British Empire, and they fought for their interests (which was global domination: Google "The American Century" or "PNAC Project for the New American Century", for more info).
On the other side, there was Stalin, who fought for the communist takeover of the entire world (Google Comintern, and the Comunist Manifest)....note, including the British Empire. Nuff said...
Churchill finally woke up in 1944, and realized that the world was being turned into a two power system, and that "the other system" would probably not be the British Empire. He came up with Operation Unthinkable...but too late...
The resources of Empire had already been squandered on a dumb military strategy of "flattening Germany" (Google "the financial cost of the British policy of Area Bombing", which took between a third and half of the entire British war effort).
Churchill didn't understand the British Policy of Balance of Power for the continent, which as a tool to ensure the safety of the British Empire had protected Empire for 400 years.
That meant, ensuring the balance of power, by avoiding the complete collapse a power one could ally with to avoid a bigger danger.
What had been done for 400 years to ensure the safety of Empire, was no longer possible in 1945, because on the continent everything was basically "Alles Kaputt", or alienated...
Germany kaput.
Italy kaput.
Poland, Czechoslovakia... sold off to the commies.
The Balkans? Fruitless attempts at "carving up interests" (Google Percentages Agreement)
France, alienated and now a Washington lapdog (understandable, after Mers el Kebir).
There was nobody to ally with in order to uphold Empire.
Communism, and American corporate capitalism, would erode it away within a decade...
Of course, criticism is always easy without having a better plan (armchair general), but even in war all choices are options. Choosing the worst options, have far-reaching effects.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Seeing how most of the comments are slogans and appeals to emotion, I'll just jump into the fray.
For hundreds of years, the British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations around the world. Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images"). When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets". The locals defending their own? Pfffft. Nobody cared...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps (called "penal colonies"), and terror bombing innocents called Air Policing...
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s killed their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The documentary is too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture. Simply a look at a small pixel of the larger image, and therefore too "compartmentalized".
Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, ALL Europeans lost.
WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and Great Britain off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted. WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that the ideologues of Atlanticism (the naval powers) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination.
In the end ALL Europeans lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After the Cold War this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" as continued divide-and-rule policy was moved a few hundred miles eastwards.
Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with Churchill's Iron Curtain (1946) and the Truman Doctrine (1947), and the Wolfowitz Doctrine (1992), all of which consider Europeans as "chess pieces" to be played with (The Grand Chessboard/Zbigniew Brzezinski/1997).
Footnote:
"Atlanticism, also known as Transatlanticism, is the ideology which advocates a close alliance between nations in Northern America and in Europe..." (wiki)
It is false of course.
Not "Europe" which is a defined term.
Parts of North America, and PARTS of Europe, which is "divide-and-rule".
There.
Fixed it...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Knowle Austin Hasan is correct.
Because Americans don't realize that by their efforts to fight fire with fire, they have merely created a firestorm...
Same as their dumb War on Drugs has backfired, creating more and more violence, resulting in more and more refugees, their dumb War on Terrorism has created more war and more terrorism.
That's what haplens if one ignores the root cause of problems, and try to fight the symptoms.
The root cause of the current migration problem? The War on Drugs...it self a result of a domestic drug problem
Fighting the symthoms of a US domestic drug abuse problem in Central America, rather than the USA, is merely expanding the problem.
Fighting the symptoms of terrorism in the ME, is simply going to expand it. And it already is...the ME, now Africa.
The root cause of course, is US meddling in their world, for oil and strategic gain.
Published on
Monday, September 17, 2018 commondreams
The US-Led Global War on Terrorism Has Succeeded... In Creating More Global Terrorism
"In the 17 years since the events of Sept. 11 2001, after which the United States declared a "global war on terror," there has not been a terrorist attack of similar size or magnitude on American soil.
However, according to findings in a new congressionally mandated report by the United States Institute of Peace—authored by members of a federal task force focused on extremism—nations around the world have suffered a five-fold increase in terrorist attacks following the post-9/11 policies unleashed by the U.S. and its allies.
The focus of the report—titled Beyond the Homeland: Protecting America from Extremism in Fragile States—maintains a very U.S.-centric worldview. And while it does little or nothing to critically challenge the widely criticized policies pursued by the Bush, Obama, or Trump presidencies, its tabulation of the dramatic rise in destablized states and growing terrorist violence throughout the regions where the U.S. military has been most active since 2001—namely, the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa—is nonetheless revealing."[end of quote]
2
-
2
-
2
-
Edward Wallace Your entire reasoning is plain wrong.
For example, your interpretation of "the Constitution" is ENTIRELY different from the next man.
Therefore, your idea that a "state militia" will stand up UNITED and protect you and YOUR values, is a false premise.
In reality, when it comes to the "push and the shove", the nation will be DIVIDED, influenced by subversive propaganda, and NOT unite against the "evil gubbamint".
Just face it.
Because when the time comes, most Americans will be too complacent to bother getting off their behind, sitting behind massive flat screen TVs, and will NOT RECOGNIZE the reality of what happens.
Any preventive measure, which does not address FUNDAMENTAL flaws of reasoning is bound to fail.
The US system is well-versed to cope with outside threats, as these will quickly UNITE. As far as internal threats are concerned, the system which exists today, will DIVIDE, and lead to a civil war.
2
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
2
-
2
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."[end of]
America's allies and foes in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
Set up European and Eurasian nations against each other.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
2
-
2
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideoligically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Europeans "divided" by a line drawn on a map (this "B-B line"), without them having a say in matters, and with them expected to "man the parapets" of the resulting "wall".
Played again, and again...
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@the boss Yup.
But look on the bright side.
Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
OPERATION UNTHINKABLE STATUS: BURIED
GB STATUS: BOMBED INTO TOTAL FINANCIAL BANKRUPTCY
BRITISH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STATUS: SUPERSEDED
PAX BRITANNICA STATUS: CANCELLED"
EMPIRE STATUS: GAME OVER
Reap as you sow counts for all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
His "service to king and country" came with a price tag: The end of his beloved Empire...
Looooooong before WW2, an elitist club of insider London lords he served, had set off to set Europe up for failure...
And they repeated it TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage.
Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Never a "price tag" for own actions and inactions...
Right?
WRONG
Bwits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: *"Empires" don't have "friends".
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"...
And after the war ended?
They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946).
Did they ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not.
Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next.
Hop, hop, hop...into extinction.
Sad...
2
-
2
-
2
-
*It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.*
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
He is pointing out that the citizens of USA are a victim of the monsters your leaders create, fund, and help organise as tools of "divide and rule"...
Ignorance of your own government's evil, does not protect individuals from harm.
From globalresearch
"The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”
So lemme get this straight.
Not even the smartest lawyers your dollars could buy, could come up with a way to spin and twist words in order to draft an anti-terrorist law, without sending good ol' USA straight behind bars?
LMFAO
Dumb 'murica. Eat the sh*t you created...
Deal with it, snowflakes, and stop whining about the effects of your own actions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
British leaders went to Sudan and Iraq, bombing everybody else, thinking nobody could bomb them...
The instigators like best buddies Harris, Portal, Trenchard and Churchill went waaaay back. They had no problems terror bombing women and children in Iraq during the 1920s, in "ops" euphemistically called "air policing", and kept a secret from the general public back home.
It was justified by the elites in London as "a cheap alternative to land forces".
So what did the citizens of Iraq ever do to GB? Or neighbors? Or did they invade anyone to "deserve it" too?
From historynet:
"Air policing is a relatively simple strategy. Aircraft operating out of well-defended airfields are supported by fast-moving armored car squadrons. When an outlying village or isolated tribe refused to pay taxes or ignored the central government, airplanes would be dispatched to strafe and bomb the offending group. Trenchard explained he could achieve results more cheaply with his RAF squadrons..."
Such fun, terror bombing and strafing civilians, cowering in tents and simple villages made of mud and stone. Such a "great opportunity" (sic.) to test new weapons, like delay action bombs (time fuses), or fragmentation bomblets on innocent civilians...
Once a terror bombing fanboy, always a terror bombing fanboy.
Their pathetic empire's HQ back home in London, Bristol, Coventry, Hull, Birmingham, etc., etc. would one day "reap" as it "sowed", a hundred times over...
Well.
Who would've guessed the 2,000-year old biblical logic counts for all...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Eager to fight fascism, Zinn joined the United States Army Air Forces during World War II and became an officer. He was assigned as a bombardier in the 490th Bombardment Group, bombing targets in Berlin, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary. As bombardier, Zinn dropped napalm bombs in April 1945 on Royan, a seaside resort in western France.
On the ground, Zinn learned that the aerial bombing attacks in which he participated had killed more than a thousand French civilians as well as some German soldiers hiding near Royan to await the war's end, events that are described "in all accounts" he found as "une tragique erreur" that leveled a small but ancient city and "its population that was, at least officially, friend, not foe." In The Politics of History, Zinn described how the bombing was ordered—three weeks before the war in Europe ended—by military officials who were, in part, motivated more by the desire for their own career advancement than in legitimate military objectives."
Copied from the Film Archives Channel (YouTube)
After World War II, Zinn attended New York University on the GI Bill, graduating with a B.A. in 1951. At Columbia University, he earned an M.A. (1952) and a Ph.D. in history with a minor in political science (1958).
Whether French or "just a c&%nk" in Vietnam, you get Napalmed to the sound of cheers and jeers.
Sad news? Empires don't have friends.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The question why it took GB 7 years after WW2, to carry out their 1st nuclear test, even though the technology had already been developed by international scientist (also British) before 1945.
Because its the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and "cute Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world really works...
Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world "you shall not have nuclear weapons!"
[Google how that unfolded with: "history/british-nuclear-program]
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
1945 Washington DC: "If you want nukes, develop them yourself. In the meantime, I'll dismantle your empire, and steal all your best markets. What are you going to do about it?"
"The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain." Thomas Jefferson
That's how leverage works.
Rule Britannia, replaced by the American Century.
Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana.
Why didn't Washington DC/The American Century give their "special friends" the secret of nuclear bombs in 1945?
What is your best answer?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes.
Excellent comment.
It get's even worse than that.
Investors, and venture capitalists have discovered a new field of operation.
In today's age, finding a lemon to squeeze until the pips squeek is getting more and more difficult.
So now, America's richest have discovered America's poorest, buying up trailer parks, doubling the rents to make it a "worthwhile investment", and throwing more poor people into homelessness.
Because you live in a morally deplorable country that kisses ass up (to money), and kicks down (to the weak). True, even for the poorest of the poor. Unfortunately, reading the comments, too many have already fallen for the PragerU propaganda, and are unwilling, ignorant, indifferent, and complacent....
People have forgotten that someday it'll be their turn.
History has predestined this....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join up...
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
Politicians can never admit they made mistakes, so they have to create abstractions to cover up their blundering...
Europe was already set up to fail at Versailles.
Because the policies of "balancing powers" were made in the back rooms...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
That Germany was "allowed" to rearm during the 1930's (or "closing an eye to Hitler re-arming") was an effect of a policy dictated to the continent by London, and put into effect, yet again, at Versailles: Balance of Power.
So the later Germany/Hitler re-arming and standing up to rising communism suited the lords in London just fine...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_five-year_plan
[Note, the term "power" encompasses a wide range of qualities from population growth, level of education (including scientists, mechanics, and engineers), scientific advances, level of industrialisation, urbanisation/i.e. advanced society, infrastructure projects, increased GDP, and yes...soldiers, tanks, guns, airplanes...]
As the SU grew, so did Germany.
Perfectly fine, if you ask the lords...
It was "allowed" to grow "balance out" communism.
Why complain about it in hindsight?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Treaty of Versailles was, according to many historians and their various analyses, the death knell of Europe.
The ability of people to blame others for the effects of own behaviour, rather than to blame themselves for their own decisions, castes long shadows.
Individuals should avoid debates following the principles of "right/wrong" since such debates go around in circles forever. Debaters cherry-picking their "facts" and "dates." Obviously, everybody has a different concept of "right/wrong." Instead, point out causal effects of own actions imposed, and which were not a result of a "round table" negotiation such as The Concert of Europe was a century previously. These decisions after the Napoleonic Wars, to create a balance of powers per mutual agreement after a major tragedy which affected all, worked amazingly well for 100 years, despite the limited wars which continued after 1815. The first step of those seeking peace was to acknowledge the security risks of all the major powers, but also avoiding the childish "finger pointing" at all the various hotheads who had previously escalated limited crises/engagements of regional character, thereby escalating these into a world-wide war, with millions of dead and millions more negatively affected.
With the Treaty of Versailles, Europe went down the drain when their leaders decided to abandon the principle of Machiavellian "fairness", and impose an IMbalance of power de jure at a green table, without the deterrence to enforce it in the future. Not a "Machiavellian" principle, but the reasoning of weak minds who know they wouldn't have to face consequences if anything went wrong (the biggest examples of the "mommy's basement hero" in history were the "winners" of WW1 for that matter).
By not inviting all, REGARDLESS of the excuses made, they thereby created a de facto reality which was the same as pre-1914. The security concerns of a neighbour was simply ignored. The NWO was dictated onto one of the neighbours (Versailles) whilst another was simply not invited either. This an observation based on the facts. Why was the situation of pre-1914 recreated again post-1918 at Versailles? In 1919 Machiavellian fairness was thrown out the window again when one of the powers was encroached upon by an "encirclement strategy" AGAIN.
The first encirclement took place in stages starting in the 1890s, and continued following the year 1900. After WW1 the encirclement strategy was continued again; instead of a small number of large encircling powers as before 1914, there were now (enabled by the Armistice and Versailles) a larger number of smaller encirclers after 1919, who either allied with or aligned with the "winners" (France/GB/USA). Thereby, wanted or not, these new smaller states became the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer Theory) of outsiders. European history of 1,000 years, as either France or the Holy Roman Empire tried to encircle each other (2-front war danger), trying to get the vital "upper hand" in a struggle for Western European "top dog"-status, continued. Just like in physics, every force creates a counterforce. The intention to "keep down/keep out/encircle" a neighbour, created an effect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The observation today is therefore that Europeans will lose again, because after 1990 this marching onto the borders of a neighbour, and encroaching on a neighbour (also "by proxy"), ignoring constantly repeated warnings, was continued. Only this time the neighbour "encroached upon" with an encirclement strategy was Russia. The "morphed tools" now included all Central European nations, too blinded by narratives to unite in time to avoid their own "tool status" AGAIN.
This is an observation, empowered by a million bits of data from history, and which cannot be countered, because it actually happened. This reality forces the obfuscators and "whataboutism"-fanboys if history into all kinds of contorted and distorted gish-galloping attempts at deflecting, word trickery and ingroup bonding, to "get the ingroup in line again".
The "marching route" towards Russia was:
- Eastern Europe
- Balkans
- Black Sea Region/Caucasus (southern pincer of encroachment)
- Baltic Region/Scandinavia (northern pincer of encroachment)
Those who implement their step-by-step, SYSTEMIC EXPANSION always only want peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE. A little "piece" of...
All they wish to do is "eat a PIECE of salami, slice by slice by slice" and they are all very friendly. Look, they even wag their NATO-tails.
All of this is "history rhyming.
Then they think people are too stupid to notice what they are doing. All they wish to do is deflect from a very simple reality: they need YOU as a tool, to overpower your neighbour FOR them. In the big picture, the story is to deceive people into doing unto others what they would never consider acceptable if "done unto them" (systems).
As stated in the first paragraph, individuals can argue their own personal rights/wrongs until they are blue in the face, huff and puff about how great they are, but it is not going to protect them from the harmful causal effects of the own systemic expansive aims as implemented by the strategists in the capital cities, or by the so-called "friends" who employ them as tools, buffer zones, as happily marching "useful idiots/innocents," ideological propagandists, a "new best friend" with a nice new shiny red "bullseye" painted on the back (lightning rods), or otherwise employed as proxies, without "round table"-consent of all involved powers (aka Machiavellian concept of fairness).
Beware of bowing down to the narrative spinners and framers.
How the narrative is spun in order the create a smokescreen for the hidden aims and agendas, reveals the strategists and their ulterior motives, which are the same today as 100 and 125 years ago. History does not "start" with the REaction. It starts with the actions. Pity if one lives in countries collectively too blind to see.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Reap as you sow counts for all.
The price for a "flattened Germany" would be paid after WW2.
Of course, Germany as a "power", benefited the British Empire.
With this "power" wiped out, Empire became indefensible.
Empire's "fwiends"?
Of course, they had their own agendas.
Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
[Google: The American_Century]
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
[britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
[Google: Operation_Unthinkable 1944]
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
Stalin quickly and instinctively figured out that Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
[Google: Percentages_agreement Churchill and Stalin]
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. Here's Greece. I'll take the rest, including your friends Poland 100%. What are you going to do about it?"
Sow "more than the measure", then "reap" the demise of influence, and your "empire"...
2
-
2
-
2
-
Correct. It was even quite easy solve.
What lacked was willpower.
As the definition "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and lose is closer to what happened.
DIVIDE AND CONTROL
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please :-)
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels, and any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain, simply needed to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. Once "divided", there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Some examples regarding the theory in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors would offer a foothold in Europe.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have such consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement after 1895, amongst other less "valuable" suitors, was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below). The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises made"...lol
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...lol.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics sterted with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947. It is alive and well. It has surrounded every aspect of power politics on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Same with the funding of opposing European leaders and states (for example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s).
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else, while "eating popcorn and chips"...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@danialhillmann5374 Sadly, not all noble causes result in noble ends.
If the native Americans had been armed, and taken "laws" into their own hands, they would then simply have been termed "marauding criminals", and massacred anyway.
They might have taken few more of those doing the massacre with them, but the end effect would have been the same. Without the manpower, technology, finances (to support mass armies), and other advances in warfare, they would have lost anyway.
In fact, even more would have ended up dead, totally overpowered by a superior enemy, and not even granted the grace of "reservations" in such an alternative history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The question posed to Asians (mainly Chinese and Indians/citizens within these borders) remains the same.
The obfuscators and dividers will use the same techniques in reasoning as they use in politics: they will "hop around" on criteria, causing dissention in debates, in the same way the (scaled up) power players "hop around" on entire countries/governments/capital cities/key politicians in geopolitics...
The technique of "divide and rule"...
Hop over here, hop over there, whatever standpoint brings the own short-term advantage, because THE POWER has the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of not having to suffer consequences from it's own actions.
The question posed to all Asians remains.
Whether they can see that they are in the same positions they were in 200 and 300 years ago.
The dividers come with "promises" which they mostly don't intend keeping, or offer "treaties" (in which these dividers themselves hold the geographical advantage), make all kinds of excuses why the dividers don't keep their promises, or why the dividers don't suffer the same percentage of harmfull effects in times of crisis/war as the "chosen ones". These promises are very enticing to power players, and offer the prospect of glory and achievement to the side the promises is made to...
NED: Time for little bit more democwacy in India...sooo much Indian democwacy, until they throw up by the millions...
Anthony "blink, blink" Blinken making Indians FEEL very pwoud with repeated offers of NATO membership, just like previous US admins made such promises to the Ukriane, which no doubt made many Ukrainians FEEL very proud, and then subsequently citing all kinds of "difficulties" why such "pwomises" then cannot be effected in a short timespan.
Meanwhile, exposing the "Ukraine"/proxy to extreme danger as the feet were dragged and dragged and dragged...
Of course, in the game called divide and rule, it is not the fact THAT it is a ridiculous offer, in view of recent events in the Ukraine exposing the danger of such folly, but rather the fact THAT such an offer is repeated. The fact THAT the offer is on the table, already causes mistrust/dissention amongst ASIAN neighbors.
Of course, if India refuses, the divider (of Asia), Washington DC can simply go to China and "promise Taiwan" to Beijing (signed away) in return for a deal, to surround Russia. The potential for "divide and rule" rests on the side with the geographical advantage, as long as the targets for division do not unite, specifically with a comprehensive Asian security agreement.
The question to Asians remains the same.
What are they going to do to create a SINGLE HEGEMONY (alliance) in East Asia, in order to speak with a united voice, against the POWER of division.
BRICS is not enough.
Any other deal or treaty, or even the "UN's" laws and the "wules based order" (lol) cannot stand up to the POWER of divide and rule.
It needs a comprehensive security agreement for all of those in the FRACTURE ZONE 4 (stretching from North Pole, via Japan, Taiwan, through Thailand, the Indian subcontinent, towards the Middle East).
If no comprehensive security agreement is achieved, mutually beneficial for all, then simply wait for history to return ("rhyme")...
Or are Indian leaders like... first they came for Russia, but I did not care because I was not Russian. Then they came for China, but I did not care because I was not Chinese, and even saw an advantage for myself (economy) if China got "carved up" and weakened...
Indian leaders: It'll be soooo gweat, if WE can CONTROL the WATER flowing into China, from Tibet...
Oh, such tempting "offers" and pwomises...
"Around 1900" repeating for Tibet.
Finally though, if everything is burning, divided, in quagmire of revolution and war, finger pointing, and harsh language in the neighboring state (China), who will speak up for India when the dividers come for you?
DESIRABLE OUTCOME in any divide and rule system: The dividers will subsequently have the "upper hand/higher ground" (leverage) of POWER for all future negotiations with the resulting "statelets".
The secret towards more Indian "power" lies in the continued "power" of its neighbors, not these neighbors' weakness.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The decision to "area bomb" entire cities was not only immoral, but also counterproductive.
The "price tag" for London came after the war...
Logically, also fatally flawed:
Was your grandfather or or father killed by Wittmann in his Tiger tank, on that day in Normandie in 1944?
Was he killed or wounded in the Hochwald Gap, or anywhere else in Northern Europe?
Was he shot down by a Messerschmidt, or by one of the famous 88-mm guns?
If not, how about cut to ribbons by an MG-42 machine gun?
Was he shot or badly wounded by the standard German infantry rifle at the time, the Kar-98k?
At the time of the Dresden attack, the Mauser Works in Oberndorf in in the south of Germany, barely an hours flying time from the front lines at the time, was still fully functional.
It was one of the major German small arms manufactures, including the the feared MG-42, and the old-fashioned but reliable Kar-98k.
Instead of frying 25,000 or 30,000 women and kids in Dresden in February 1945, maybe the RAF should have targeted the Mauser Works.
At this point in the war, the complete destruction or serious damage to the factory would have meant thousands of machine guns and rifles would have been either directly destroyed, or indirectly lost to production. Thousands of German soldiers, still viciously defending Germany, would have been left without adequate means to do so.
At this late stage of the war, with the front lines only a few hundred miles away, there would have hardly been an incentive for the Germans to try and repair the plant, especially not if the factory had been hit successively in a fully coordinated USAAF (daylight) and RAF (nighttime) attack.
Mauser was one of the world's most famous arms manufactures of the world, yet strangley anough, it was simply forgotten.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The price for a "flattened Germany" would be paid after WW2.
Of course, Germany as a power, benefited the British Empire.
Empire's "fwiends"?
Of course, they had their own agendas.
Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
[Google: The American_Century]
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
[britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
[Google: Operation_Unthinkable 1944]
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
Stalin quickly and instinctively figured out that Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
[Google: Percentages_agreement Churchill and Stalin]
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. Here's Greece. I'll take the rest, including your friends Poland 100%. What are you going to do about it?"
2
-
2
-
2
-
You don't "win" wars, you just "lose" less...
To "win", Churchill made a pact with the devil (Stalin), and a nation whose goal it was to destroy the British Empire, and take over business interests...good ol' USA.
Would you trust a bank robber and mass murderer?
Your leaders did, and ended up FIRST signing over half the world to Stalin and his ilk, and then fighting him in the "half" that was left.
Korea (carved up at Potsdam), Vietnam, Malaysia, and hundreds of proxy wars on every continent. How many "boys" did you lose here to communist agitation?
They should have read their Bibles. You know that "reap what you sow" bit...
"Won" what?
3rd fiddle?
Broke, munching on war rations long into the fifties, defaulting on debt, squeezed like lemon by yank banks, fighting commies in the Empire, then losing it...lol
Google "The American Century", to find out what deal Churchill signed up for...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
One can usually spot a person's biases and the fallacies in reasoning they use to protect their worldview in a few exchanges. One can lay word-traps with questions or statements (irrelevant, one only reads the response). Since it is easy to confuse the concepts of "explaining a theory" (by an individual) and "condoning a theory" (by an individual) and it is therefore first necessary to clarify.
Because EVERY belief system is a THEORY, "believed" by either more, or less human beings. All belief systems are a combination of carefully selected facts, data, sub-theories, analyses, lore, legends, books, all more or less randomly cherry-picked in order to form a pleasing storyline.
The analogy is Plato's Cave.
It does not matter how many, or how few believe the lore.
It is a belief system.
Systemic "success" (debatable concept) or "failure" is determined by the location on the globe and the power of the backing systems of gain. NOTHING else.
An analysis of a debater's choice of words then quickly reveals, either by the words used by the debater, or by themes/topics which are CONSCIOUSLY AVOIDED, that the debater attributes no blame whatsoever for any single problem ever arising anywhere in the world, to the own "side" (feelings/group dynamics). "Finger pointers" engage in endless semantics, trying to confuse the reference or trying to defuse the meanings of words, or the relations between them.
ADVICE: Avoid "debating" such individuals, since it is a waste of time. Every single comment contributes to what ancient wise thinkers have already concluded thousands of years ago.
Instead, in case you live outside of North America or Western Europe, never expect a comprehensive systematic apology for past wrongs. Never expect a systemic apology signalling a deep-rooted desire to significantly change the strategies of power, supported by such types. They leave it for a few doves to state, and then they laugh about the "doves." Instead, in case you live in the "jungle" of the garden's rimlands, spend the own personal energy on aiding in establishing a local/regional BALANCE OF POWERS between the systems. Then squeeze out the US/Western systems of meddling and exploitation (corporatism) from the own continents, by creating an equal position of power. Obviously, do not allow other meddlers from elsewhere in at the same time, but maintain the CONTROL within the own regions of power. History has shown again and again, that nothing else will work. If not, expect to get run over by more powerful forces in action, by those who use various strategies to gain advantages for the own systems, at the expense of others (for the gain of the own exclusive "ingroup"). If you live in the "jungles" they look down on, their giant vacuum cleaners will hoover off the gains, and expect you not only to be happy about the crumbs falling off the richly lain tables, but to also bow down and be thankful.
Their ideologically/systemically indoctrinated supporters reveal themselves with the words they use, or the themes intentionally avoided. The ideologically indoctrinated do not consider themselves a part of a flawed man-made systems, and if at all, only minor "mistakes" are ever admitted. This is despite the fact that every single issue the world faces today has a clear causal chain of events which can be drawn all the way back to decisions made by the US/collective Western historical and current leaders. They sit in Plato's Cave and think they are special. Incapable of grasping that they are sitting in Plato's Cave, and blinded because they are too busy pointing their fingers anywhere else. Anybody who shows up from outside their caves, telling them they are sitting in a cave looking at "pretty pictures", will be countered with a "bUt buT yOU aRe in the cave too..." (finger pointing).
"There is some wisdom in taking a gloomy view, in looking upon the world as a kind of Hell, and in confining one's efforts to securing a little room that shall not be exposed to the fire." - Arthur Schopenhauer
They will try to AVOID unity where you live, in your neck of the woods, with their actions. For that is what they have always gained from.
Divide-and-rule is the strategy they have employed as empires.
A comprehensive, multi-tiered cyclic dynamical system of gain.
A BIG club, and you ain't init.
Neither are they, these advocates, but they are too ignorant to figure it out.
If you live in the "jungles", you must AVOID disunity with your neighbours at all cost.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or the British Empire's Mackinder/Pivot of History before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their geographical advantage.
With re. to how tools to implement the strategy are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as Kissinger implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combated by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today.
Today as we watch on, the Ukraine is being burnt to the "last Ukrainian soldier" accompanied by cheers of "...but, but, but they had a choice!!"
Poland will be next to be given a "choice," if the Ukraine fails as US/Western proxy and tool, in a long list of previous examples of the Washington DC/Pentagon-steered global strategy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Geography is essential, and the "advantages" of power are a mix. If some of the ingredients are missing, any attempts at hegemony will fail...
On top of "organizational advantages: The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Asking the wrong questions on a limited scope and timeline will not reveal the divide-and-rule technique.
The empire set off on the "G-G Line" from Germany to Greece, during the First Cold War after declaring war ("cold" war/1947).
It advanced to the "B-B Line" from the Baltics to the Black Sea (see footnote) after the "peace" was declared to the plebs after the 1990s, and a bright new future pwomised to all the children of history, believers...
How long do you think it will take for the empire, wriggling and writhing about ("divide-and-rule"), hopping over here and there ("pivoting") before they reach the "A-A Line"?
‐-----------
The "B-B Line".
When people start thinking in terms of dichotomies like winning/losing, left/right wing, us/them, right/wrong, unity/division, they are already all "losers."
Think in terms of a desirable outcome. If not, lose.
Outsiders fabricate the "crescent of crises" around your heartland.
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
If outsiders come from outside and start drawing lines on the map, through your homelands without asking the people who live there.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. They allow outsiders to play the cards FOR them.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS. Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
2
-
2
-
2
-
The USA is a casino masquerading as a country.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries so that any economic surplus generated by that country is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US government, and especially to US bondholders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is the dollar tributary of the weaker economies, and junior partners, being vacuumed off in order to please the controlling master.
To those who stand up to these systems, and who have their "princes" (Machiavelli/gatekeepers) intact, the citizens live under perpetual danger of becoming the victims of the US MIMAC-written and crafted BLACK LEGEND of being the collective "bad guys" of history. The USA insists on acting like a neutral third party when it is in reality the direct instigator of crises and wars where their "interests run". Look way back at the Nye Commission of the 1930s: Washington DC has always been a belligerent party that is on the constant lookout for proxies (favouritism as strategy of divide-and-rule/conquer) to implement long-standing plans to subject other states and turn them into "dollar tributaries", or if not possible, to balkanize regions of the globe. Words like balkanize, fragmentation, drawing lines on the map, "our friends fighting for freedom," puppet regimes, corporate interests, etc. are always indicative of a strategy of divide-and-rule, hidden behind the narratives of the innocent doves, who think they are the benevolent empire, "always helping the good guys and the weak and oppressed."
The current pariah for the "future carving knives" is Russia, using a whole bag of US tricks and schemes it's been famous for since 1776. Ask the First Nations.
2
-
2
-
@edwardterry9468 So you would agree then that there are going to instances when even being well-armed cannot defend against an attacker, because the attacker will have the advantage of surprise?
Furthermore, it has been proven that most mass-shooters are not spontaneous acts (like the one last week in Texas, which was spontaneous eruption of violence), but planned well ahead. The mass-shooter planning the attack while often checking out various vantage points, attack angles, buying stocks of ammo, bullet proof gear, etc.
As the defenses on the ground increase, they will simply move elsewhere.
Take this "school shooting" scenario, with "alternative planning" leading to specially constructed (obviously more expensive) schools as the antidote.
Uhm...what will stop one on these maniacs from realising that the "enterprise" he is planning is too dangerous, and simply targeting a school bus in an ambush?
Can't you see that these slimy murderers are like water always looking for the tiniest crack, and a different way to reach their ultimate goal, which is notoriety?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
London went to war on the continent twice, by own admission, to "balance powers" on the continent...
London's standpoint, by own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell = the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
And so the London lords played their "balancing games".
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
How absolutely funny...
They gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire.
Good riddance.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They "hopped on the scale" and they "hopped" their way into extinction.
Good riddance.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The last time the USA gained big time, was after the USA had played its part in setting up Imperialist Europe for failure 100 years ago, starting around 1900 in small steps, using the divide and rule technique of power and from a position of unassailable geographical favor (the geographical reality can also be stated using other words, such as "competing from advantageous ground"/RAND Report, 2019).
How are American psycho leaders going to get Eurasian states/countries, incl. their own "friends" in the EU, and the rising East Asian part of BRICS, to go "down" again so the good times of "50% wealth for us" (post-WW2 strategy/McKennan), while attracting and raking in all the runaway talent from everywhere else as these regions are destroyed by crises and war (brain drain), and as these wars are funded by the post-1913 fiat currency dollar hegemony? (see footnote)
How can US leadership avoid having to deal with the OWN divided and ruled over population when they can no longer be pacified by throwing heaps of luxury into their laps, getting successively disgruntled as the amount of afforded wealth is decreasing yearly, and ever-more divided more and more unevenly within the own system (1% owning 50% of wealth in the USA) while everybody else on the planets is "exhausted" and "extended," all the while pretending to be friends? Note that the current rising anger within the USA is no longer ground on moral inequalities, such as the large uprisings in the 1960s, and 1970s. The current anger on the the streets, is overwhelming carried by a massive inequality within the OWN country, with the mega-rich encroaching on the own small amounts of acquired wealth in ever more outrageous and openly advocated and politically backed corporate steps...
Obviously, unlike the post-WW2 "good ol' days" there is not enough to pass around anymore, as others rise and start demanding a fair share of the world?s resources, on ALL front lines.
WHAT. ARE. THEY. GOING. TO. DO?
Oh, never mind: They are already doing it. Divide and rule technique of power, same as ever since they existed.
footnote
Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money = "control" the resources. It doesn't need a ton of books to explain what money is. Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money/currency = "control" the resources. There. Did it in twenty seconds 😂
"If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu," February 17th 2024, US Secretary of State Blinken. If you don't got the money honey, YOU are going to be eaten, if YOU don't unite with your neighbors. That is the system YOU cheer for as "best that can be done."
Money is a vehicle to allocate resources. It's the physical resources which are limited, and who controls the flow of printable money, controls the flow of resources.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Zionism became a tool of the British Empire during WW1.
After WW2, the hegemon causing problems in the Levant and the ME in general, became Washington DC.
The Cold War and "oil" (interests), geopolitical/grand strategy strategic interests (like military bases, or the control of geographical chokepoints), was the reason for all of the US/collective West's meddling in the ME for more than 100 years...
From a position of POWER, the USA/collective West used and still uses, the age-old strategy of "divide and rule" over ALL these minor powers in the Middle East and therefore the Levant.
The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they initially created with their own desire to CONTROL and DOMINATE the world, as terrorists...
It's "divide and rule".
Stand up to the hegemon, and one becomes the outgroup.
It's ALWAYS divide and rule if governments defend wrongs against the wishes of most of its inhabitants. For the "dividers", the resulting division is always good. They can rule over the fear, the discord, manage the "finger pointers", and moderate the "pointed at" alike.
The "winners"?
Those who act like the historical "Rome" in the background, pulling the strings of POWER, affording favoratism to chosen ones, for their own aims and goals.
It's how "divide and rule" works...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of West Asia (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders have made use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people. First Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give a weak mind money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Austerity" simply means the political and financial elites wish to steer the flow of RESOURCES upwards, into their own pockets.
Note: money, or capital, or wealth, or debt (incl. all cash, which is a debt note), or the stock market, or currency as digits on an account, or whatever else that is NOT "resources" (tangible) are simply a way to STEER the tangible resources, upwards, up up up...like a giant vacuum cleaner, away from the bases of the pyramids.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
AVOID THE EQUILLIBRIUM
That is the sole aim of the "affairs of the city" which is per definition the system of politics, which steer a combination of socio-economic, and politico-economic models.
Divide-and-rule/conquer works because not everyone involved knows that they are taking on a role in a power game. That's how the strategy works. Very few people really need to understand it. In English, the principle is called "Useful Innocent/Useful Idiot." From a position of power, you can animate people (usually through money, or ideology) who play a role, but they know not what they do.
The peoples in your neck o' the woods, have been ruled by division since the beginning.
Because it's easier to divide people based on personal differences than to unite them based on their similarities. Strategically ambivalent elites use this to their own advantage. Now the intention is simply to avoid the unity in your society, in order to "rule" over the dissenters, which is the classic "divide and conquer" principle. This strategy is kept under wraps, due to a systemic desire to be "good", and on the "right side of history", and therefore overemphasizing the actions of philanthropists, political doves, peace activists, religious leaders, etc.
At the same time the activities of political hawks sowing divisions are downplayed, relativized, apologized for, mostly by politicians and strategists as the "story tellers" of history. But also by commoners, who simply parrot the stories without thinking them through, and who are NOT privy to the overall strategy (divide-and-rule in all its intricacies and nuances).
The main interest of these people for which we have been fighting wars for centuries has been the relationships between organized systems of finance and power, and systems of resources and manpower. Because united they are the only power that could threaten this group. They must make sure that the unity of others does not happen. ... For these elites ... the greatest fear is an overall creation of a unity of technology, capital and natural resources, and labor, as the only combination that has frightened the elites for centuries. So how does this play out? Well, they have already put their cards on the tilted table. They draw their invisible lines onto society (shoutout to George Friedman, STRATFOR 2015 presentation, for providing the template of this paragraph).
Today all our so-called "leaders" are too weak to create systemic unity, to avoid their "friends" simply drawing lines all over the place, which they cower down to and must obey. Endless wars, constant disagreements, using imperialism to stay on top. Using "levers" of lies and distrust, via power players. Creating favorites: favoring the proxies who bow down and sacrifice themselves for the mastah. Pointing fingers, everywhere else, using the POWER of the mainstream media (footnote).
Divide-and-rule/conquer.
The oldest trick in the book...
Who has the POWER? Who has always had the GEOPOSITIONAL advantage of power to rule? The GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all other "buck catchers" (tools and other instruments of POWER in the Roman era style), but could not be reached themselves at any point in a historical timeline due to a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic- or political advantage?
“Divide-and-rule/conquer” as a standard strategy of power and thus the cause of nearly all conflicts in the world connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Different terms. Different eras. Different systems. Same games...
The opposition that wants unity and equillibrium in a region is the "bad guy" (Black Legend concept).
》》》》》
Footnote:
Giant spinning/framing machine = MIMAC = cyclic dynamical systems of power
2
-
2
-
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better.
Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power.
In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. Washington DC used the same techniques (favoritism of specific "buck-catchers") that it had previously used to overpower European states and empires.
After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, so by 1945 the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." (end of)
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided" (the role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative. "Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...)
London went from chief divider to chief of the divided in less than a quarter of a century.
Whatever...
If your state or nation is "not at the table," you are "lunch" (Anthony Blinken).
The dividers telling everybody in no uncertain terms, that their interests and even their lives don't count. There is no doubt that Washington DC is attempting to repeat this "success" (pov) in the rising powers of Asia. Indian Minister of External Affairs Dr. Jaishankar said: "The era of US dominance, which began after the end of the Cold War, has effectively ended." The strategy can be observed to be implemented in the same way as was set up post-1900 in Europe, but in Europe the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer theory) were Great Britain and France. Today, it is India being used in the same role as France was 100 years ago. In case of a wider war in Asia, as India is set up against China, qui bono if all lose?
The technique Washington DC employed up to the year 2000, is an almost exact repeat of the technique they used to overpower Europe around the year 1900: DIVIDE AND RULE.
Divide and rule creates all that follows in its wake:
1) The terrorist.
2) The state of terror.
3) The terror state.
Ukraine, Taiwan, now Poland, and many more will follow, being set up as tools and sacrificial offerings to extend the rule of the American Century.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
...because Hasan is right.
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Training "dogs"?
How'd that work out?
Please comment.
But, errr....no "fluffy emotions"....please....
2
-
2
-
2
-
...because Hasan is right.
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Training "terrorists"?
How'd that work out?
2
-
2
-
2
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" without a treaty or signature on the dotted line.
What could possibly go wrong?
I assume machiavelli was rolling in his grave...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries.
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
2
-
2
-
The Cuban Missle Crisis and WW1.
Of course the average history fan will ask themself the question "What does the Cuban Missle Crisis have to do with WW1?".
The answer to that rhetoric: Everything, because even when "only studying history", we are also (indirectly) studying human nature.
And human nature, unlike human behaviour, is a constant. It does not change.
Human behaviour of course changes (rules, laws, society, etc.).
Whether ancient history or modern times: human nature remains the constant factor.
The key lessons when comparing the two, is how a willingness to compromise averted the end of humanity in 1962 (or MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction).
The average history fan's take on the Cuban Missle Crisis is somewhat along the lines of "Nasty Russia wanted to rule the world :-) and threatened the good guys USA but the good guys stayed strong and won in the end because we were better people and ya'll know the good guys always win", or something simplistic like that...LOL
Far from it.
To those who dig a little deeper and discover all the facts, and are particularly not confused by history books/docs pinning a flag on a timeline, a completely different picture arises.
It was actually the "good guys" who "started it", by placing own nuclear missles in Turkey, on the Russian doorstep, thereby creating a security issue for the UdSSR which did not exist in return for "the good guys", who initiated/triggered//started the crisis. The Russians responded, by using the age-old principle of "What does it feel like?" (or the Biblical "put yourself in their shoes"), and thereby started placing their own missles in Cuba, on the US doorstep.
Irrelevant of personal "feelings" (sympathies, opinions, patriotism, "my country, right or wrong", slogan chanting, whatever): reality was created by "causality", not the opinions or feelings of individuals.
The above has a parallel re. the geopolitical encirclement/military danger of a two-front war of Germany/Austria-Hungary. First by Russia and France of Germany, then followed by Russia-France-GB in re. to mostly Germany. Then followed by Russia-Serbia attempting to do the same with Austria-Hungary aka "two front war" danger for Austria-Hungary. Of course the 3rd Balkan War which Vienna started in July 1914 was in response to a Serbian provocation in June 1914, and was a preventive war (see definition). It was started by Austria-Hungary, to avoid/prevent a potentially possible alliance between Russia and Serbia.
At some point one oversteps a line re. the security issues of another state/alliance, and one must first acknowledge it, then work towards a compromise.
So what did the "new alpha" after WW2 (Washington DC), do differently during the Cuban Missle Crisis (1962), than the powers did in the leadup to WW1?
And in particular the "leader of the world" which was unmistakably still London/Empire (early-20th century).
1) Washington DC obviously first acknowledged that Russia stood "in different shoes" (biblical logic), and had a security issue created by US actions
2) after the first step of acknowledgement, a compromise was made
So here is what the noisy "victory"-chanters forget to mention: The USA withdrew their missles from Turkey, and in return Russia withdrew theirs from Cuba.
*Both countries' security issues were (within the limits set by the status quo at time aka "Cold War") acknowledged, and then a compromise was made.
Obviously there were differences. There was obviously a difference between a short-term crisis (2 weeks in 1962) and long-term geopolitical changes (say, the 30 years leading up to WW1). Also technology, geography, political systems, etc. between the two events, so there is no need to point these out.
The factor of human nature was the constant factor.
Also of course the knowledge on the part of both superpowers that screwing it up in 1962 could never lead to a "win" for anybody, because MAD would have been kinda final for all...
The "lesson to be learnt" from WW1 was obviously at least partly learnt by the new alpha after WW2.
"Put yourself in their shoes", and compromise.
Obviously there is no need to make false compromises (google "argumentum ad temporantium" or a false/shifted "middle ground").
For example in re. to the leadup to WW2. In the leadup to WW2 and a shoutout to all the "Hitler fanboys": Germany didn't have these geopolitical encirclement/military 2-front war security issues, because the caring good guys (LOL) took care of this "German angst" at Versailles.
"Apples and oranges"-comparisons are invalid).
The leadup to WW1 was a clear-cut case of ignoring the security issues faced by the Dual-Alliance. The Triple Entente powers were willing to push and push until something snapped. Unlike the "new alpha" after WW2, there was an unwillingness by the members of the Tripple Entente to deal with justifiable objections.
In that regard, lets see what happens with Chy-naaah and Russia today, in a similar big picture reality.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Modus operandi for 100 years.
IDF Intelligence Service report from June 1948 lists 11 factors which precipitated the exodus, listing them in order of importance as:
a. Direct hostile Jewish operations against Arab settlements. (The Haganah was the army of the Yeshuv, or Jewish community in Palestine, and was the precursor of the Israeli Defense Force, or IDF.)
b. The effect of our hostile operations on nearby Arab settlements (especially the fall of large neighboring centers).
c. Operations of the Jewish dissidents (terrorist organisations like Irgun and the Stern Gang, also known as the Irgun Tzvai Leumi, Lehi, etc.).
d. Jewish whispering operations (psy-ops) aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.
e. Expulsion orders (by Haganah/IDF).
The Israeli Intelligence Service gives an explanation re. the main factors, concluding that “without doubt, hostile (edit: own) operations were the main cause of the movement of the population”.
According to the own analyses, it was a forced expulsion, or ethnic cleansing.
2
-
As millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
2
-
2
-
@Jameson-d8x Concerning Belgium.
The only objective of the German rhetoric concerning Belgium was simply to find out what the British position was.
I'm certain they expected exactly that response, since the policy of "balancing powers" was in fact a European policy for a long time, and initially the objective was to avoid family members (as you know, all Europe's elites belonged to a few aristocratic families) from squabbling and warring about influence, power, and territories, to the disadvantage of all.
In 1914, the British response made it clear that the British were going to stick to their Policy of Balance of Power for the continent, and would not stay out, irrelevant of whether Germany invaded Belgium or not.
Had the British leaders (unexpectedly) given a positive answer, and given a guarantee that they would stay out of the war if Belgium was not invaded, I'm sure the Germans would have changed their plans.
In fact, the British could even have given a list of conditions (no German Navy in the Channel, no occupation of channel ports, such as in 1871, no territorial demands on any western European country including France, respect of freedom of the seas, etc. etc.)
Of course there was no plan B, and they only had the Schlieffen Plan.
However, the events of 1914 showed exactly how flexible the German plans were. When the initial drive on Paris failed, the Germans famously quickly changed their plans: digging in in the West, while transferring most soldiers to the East.
Since they were fighting on the strategically favorable "inside lines", it was simple as putting the men on a train and sending them in the opposite direction, arriving a day later.
[note, fighting on the "outside lines", like the allies, often meant that a change of plan could take weeks to implement]
Not having a third enemy to deal with, would have been incentive enough to change their plans if that had been the case.
The only reason the question was asked in the first place, was to confirm that the British indeed still stuck to Balance of Power, and would not stay out, irrelevant of German actions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sie haben Hitler/Berlin nie "falsch eingeschätzt.
Die nicht Kontinentale Europäischen Mächte haben immer schon versucht kontinentale Mächte als eigennutzige Werkzeuge zu verwenden.
-------------------
Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, they ALL lost.
WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and GB off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted.
WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that Atlanticists (the naval powers) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination.
In the end they ALL lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After WW2 this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards. Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain.
2
-
2
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
This is the theory.
According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules.
According to the concept of "meaning of words" all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life (50% for us, the minority), on ALL tiers, often by force, coercian, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world).
That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power).
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@greenlife8514 The Constitution needs to be heeded only according the words written down.
There is no need to adhere to words not written down.
The fact that certain words were left out (like "secular"), was done on purpose, because the creators knew that the Constitution was a timeless document. They knew that times change, and therefore allowed for changing realities by the use of words/formulations which are adaptable to the time the people live in, and by allowing the creation of amendments according to very strict democratic principles.
Let's take the 2nd.
It grants the "right" to "bear and arm".
In other words, you have the right to buy any "arm" you can carry. What is meant by "arm" is not stated in the Constitution.
That means, for example, that you or I (personally) don't have the "right" to buy a tank. It isn't possible to "carry/bear" a tank.
These weapons did not exist when the Constitution was written, and the Founding Fathers specifically chose "arm" and not specific "weapon systems" or the word "firearms" or "explosives".
See the difference?
You don't have the right to buy a nuke, even if you had enough money, because a nuke is an explosive device.
How "arms" is interpreted, is therefore a matter of debate, which takes place in every generation.
What the Constitution is very specific in, is that if it doesn't grant something as a right, which is not specifically mentioned as a right.
I hope that is what you meant.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@greenlife8514 Yes, I'm also a bit disappointed that "secularism" isn't specifically stated as a principle in the Constitution.
But it was a different world back then, and 99% of people were deeply religious, and might have felt dissed, resulting in I'll feelings towards the new leaders in the so-called "New World".
Religious people today forget that historically Christian were actually the biggest enemy of Christians, in the form of the different Confessions.
As shortly ago as the 1970s, Christians were terrorizing and murdering other Christians (Northern Ireland/IRA which was a political battle about whether Protestant pro-UK or Catholic pro-Ireland about "who rules").
Religion is toxic, because it serves as a platform to divide people.
Therefore, I'm a secularist.
Religion should be a personal matter (for each individual) and not a political tool, as many today see it. That includes PragerU, which misuses religion and their supporters as a political tool for an own agenda.
PragerU would love to see the USA become a religious state, forgetting that the world has already "been there, done that" in history, and it wasn't pleasant.
Nope, I don't want to live in the reality of a society dominated by religiously motivated ideals. Take "Sundays" for example. In a religious government, it won't take long before shops are closed on Sundays, because "God said so"....
Regards :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Middle East.
Unfortunately, the people of the Levant (most of which are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries.
First it was Rome/Constantinople, then the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (ME was the "playground" during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent: classical "divide and rule". As stated, the USA would rather see the region in perpetual state of "politics by other means" (Clausewitz/On War) rather than lose the grip on it.
For that the constant violence all over the ME are very convenient in propaganda, to rile up the masses with (quote) "beheaded baby talk"...
After the watershed in history which was WW1 (end of the rule of the Ottomans), what was the status quo and who intended to change it?
The indigenous population, or the EUROPEAN "empires" and their policies and agendas?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If anybody wishes to know what is in store for the EU and other American "best fwiends" after 2025, look back in history to what the USA did to the British Empire after WW2, when it was bankrupt and weak. The first victim of the American Century was not as proclaimed and the generally accepted narrative of history, that "it was the USSR" (sic./Truman Doctrine, "Iron Curtain"-narrative), but the British Empire, which was cut down to size turning London from "British lion" to "poodle" in around 25 years, using economic warfare.
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500. My shoutout to the original author's whose site is since removed.]
A blueprint for how one Albion deceived the other, to become the "next Albion".
The transfer of power from one control freak system to the next.
Pure unfettered opportunism.
After 1945 the USA used its own might as hammer and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). By 1945, Stalin (Moscow), smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and witnessing the collapse of virtually every other European power, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2. It was overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has self-centred imperialist aims and goals , one eventually destroys all alternatives, and when you try to defend everything, you'll eventually "defend nothing" (Friedrich the Great, re. a false allocation of clout and resources, in grand strategy and geopolitics).
That was preceded in geopolitics by a Washington DC shift away from a global non-interventionalist stand on international relations, towards a more active engagement in world affairs and global expansion which incl. European affairs (the study of "Offensive Realism") which started around the year 1900, symbolized by the Spanish-American War (1898). Something London lords happily signed up for with the "Great Rapprochement" (aligned and associated "friends only, no obligations", in the "interests"-reality of imperialism). London must have thought the good times were coming, alongside their "new friends" and making the rules for everybody else. Two Albions getting happily engaged...
What could possibly go wrong putting your trust in Washington DC?
AROUND THE YEAR 2000
In reality, your "friends" in capitalism over the Atlantic can't wait for history to repeat, to wait until Europe is weak again, exhausted from war, down in power, ready for the carving knives of OUTSIDE imperialism, all by the "friends" who are standing by and standing down to enter and benefit from the division and destruction they themselves greatly contributed to after the 1990s.
2
-
A solution for the Ukraine already existed in 1917/18 and the British and French intention was to torpedo the peace achieved after Brest-Litovsk, for the millions of people living here.
The Allies should have used their victory in the west, to ease some of the harsher conditions, without altering the main conditions, at least until the newly formed independent nations had organized and consolidated their own nations into self-supporting (and defensible) states.
Unfortunately for these millions, the "spheres of influence"-schemers on the "good guy"-side had other plans for the inhabitants.
"On December 23, 1917, the day after the first session of the preliminary Brest-Litovsk Peace Conference, representatives of Great Britain and France met in Paris and secretly concluded an agreement to dismember Soviet Russia. The agreement was entitled L’Accord Français-Anglais du 23 Décembre, 1917, définissant les zones d’action françaises et anglaises. According to its terms, England was to receive a “zone of influence” in Russia, giving her the oil of the Caucasus and control of the Baltic provinces; France a “zone” giving her the iron and coal of the Donets Basin and control of the Crimea. This secret Anglo-French treaty inevitably shaped the policy these two nations were to pursue towards Russia throughout the next several years."
THE GREAT CONSPIRACY AGAINST RUSSIA BY MICHAEL SAYERS AND ALBERT E. KAHN
"Churchill’s take on the Ukraine, specifically, is fascinating and echoes instructively. “Profiting by the fact that German troops were rapidly withdrawn after the Armistice, and no other ordered force took their place, [the Bolshevik armies] advanced rapidly and overan the whole of the Ukraine,” Churchill told the House of Commons in a speech on March 26. [1919]"
churchillstyle dot com
The second clause of the Armistice of 1918 (concerning the ex-Eastern Front) was a short-sighted vindictive and self-centered decision, especially since the Russian invasion of Finland in 1918 had already shown what the Reds were capable of, and what they thought about independence and freedom of others.
Allied leaders completely underestimated the Reds, and millions of people subsequently suffered the loss of their lives, health and property. The hordes of "Reds" obviously profitted from the "power vacuum" which the forced removal of German soldiers had resulted in, and they covered an already largely pacified region of the world with "rivers of blood".
The Ukraine could have already been independent after 1918.
All it would have needed was a deal and a signature.
We should stop pretending that our leaders care about people.
Neither today, nor in the past.
Arthur Balfour's opinion about Wilson, Llyod George, and Clemenceau : 'These three, all powerful, all ignorant men, sitting there and carving up continents, with only a child to lead them'.
There was no real difference between any of them.
They sit in their cosy offices, behind impressive desks drawing their "green lines" on the maps without consulting those who actually live there.
Oh, what a "burden" for these "white men".
Just remember: If you (personally) don't live in a region of interest to such "gentlemen", you'll be written off with a warm-hearted "thought and prayer" the minute a crisis or war starts.
Just a "thought" and "a prayer", but not much else...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Africa and the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in Africa and the ME) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
postman1782 Correct.
The McMichaels chose to follow him on a whim, and harass him.
"Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim. Harassing behavior may include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement, offensive touching or any physical interference with normal work or movement, and visual insults, such as derogatory posters or cartoons."
[USLegal]
2
-
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.”
“We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the IDF, occupying one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
2
-
Harris, Portal, and Churchill had no problems terror bombing women and children in Iraq during the 1920s, in "ops" euphemistically called "air policing", and kept a secret from the general public back home.
So what did the citizens of Iraq ever do to GB? Or neighbors? Or did they invade anyone to "deserve it" too?
From historynet:
"Air policing is a relatively simple strategy. Aircraft operating out of well-defended airfields are supported by fast-moving armored car squadrons. When an outlying village or isolated tribe refused to pay taxes or ignored the central government, airplanes would be dispatched to strafe and bomb the offending group. Trenchard explained he could achieve results more cheaply with his RAF squadrons..."
Such fun, terror bombing and strafing civilians, cowering in tents and simple villages made of mud and stone. Such a "great opportunity" (sic.) to test new weapons, like delay action bombs (time fuses), or fragmentation bomblets on innocent civilians...
Once a terror bombing fanboy, always a terror bombing fanboy.
Their pathetic empire's HQ back home in London, Bristol, Coventry, Hull, Birmingham, etc., etc. would one day "reap" as it "sowed", a hundred times over...
Well.
Who would've guessed the 2,000-year old biblical logic counts for all...
So what did the citizens of Iraq ever do to GB? Or did they "deserve it" also?
Stop the pathetic apologia of despicable human beings.
2
-
Agreed.
However, British leaders were fools, and ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
[Search for: britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
2
-
Yes, Hasan is correct.
Even the Bible said "reap what you sow".
The west, starting after WW1 started meddling, invading, playing divide and rule, destabilized, drawing lines on the map, imposing leaders and imposed mass immigration by Europeans onto them ....
First GB and France as the alpha male, then later the USA joined in.
Not the other way around.
Oil, was the root cause of that western meddling.
The birds let loose at the end of WW1, came home to roost...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@belfastholidaybreaks8414 Correct.
When looking back in judgement of historical events, we have to be careful not to make the mistake of "outcome bias"...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_bias
Wilhelm II was implementing a step-by-step policy of closer relationship with the British Empire (amongst other national and international changes) with a new Chancellor, the "moderniser" Caprivi...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_von_Caprivi
At the time, London and St. Petersburg were intense rivals, and there were bloody wars (the "Great Game" in Central Asia) about expanding spheres of interest, the protection of India from the north, etc.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game
Wilhelm thought he'd be nice, and take measures to isolate Russia, and thereby strengthening the British stand here by keeping the risk of a flank attack on Russia open.
That was the direct opposite of Bismarck's policy favoring friendlier relations with St. Petersburg, thereby allowing St. Petersburg to send forces to Central Asia...
The Three Kaiser Agreement/Reinsurance Treaty freed Russian forces to oppose the British Empire in Asia...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance_Treaty
Same as with Japan in the Far East (which GB later took as an ally to divide St. Petersburg's attention).
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Anglo-Japanese-Alliance
That "kindness" on Wilhelm part, along with other attempts at political approach, like the Helgoland-Zanzibar exchange, did not work out as planned....and London stuck to their Policy of Balance of Power for the continent, effectively making the newly united Germany the "enemy by default" in case of war.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Irrelevant of what Berlin did or didn't do, they were already "the enemy".
It therefore had little to do with what Wilhelm (or any other German leader for that matter) was like as a person.
The decisions were taken in London.
Wilhelm only represented the economic and military "weight" of a rapidly industrializing united Germany, whereas before there were only (still) agricultural single states, whose individual aristocratic rulers could be used as "divide and rule" tools to safeguard the British Empire against whatever threat developed on the continent (forging ever-changing alliances that made the emergence of a single great power/alliance impossible).
As a united power with newly-found industrial might (1880s/1890s), whether a united Germany had a "sinner" or a "saint" as a leader, played little role.
They were "the enemy" as a matter of policy.
2
-
2
-
Do not argue.
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join up...
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@francisyockey2215 Yes correct.
But that makes Zionist the "lapdog", and the British Empire the "alpha male" (late 19th/early 20th century).
Today, the British Empire has been replaced by the USA (the Brits ran away from the sh*tstorm they caused in 1948, tail between the legs).
Today, "Washington" is the alpha male, Zionism is still the lapdog. Israel, is a "tool" of Washington's policy of divide and rule, not the other way round.
Israel is a child of the Cold War. When the hegemonic power (British Empire) ran off, leaving the region in a power vacuum, a new hegemon simply stepped in and took over. Israel was financed and supported as a tool of western influence in an otherwise "Moscow" dominated ME (along with Saudi Arabia, etc.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
LOL, I don't even make $ 3,800 a month.
More like 2,000 Euros.
Still, I have affordable health care, the beach is 100 meters away, own house with pool (communal). We have 300 days of sunshine, we both work part-time, have loads of holidays, a score of beautiful hikes on our doorstep, good food, good life, all affordable.
Why would anybody consider a big city "great"?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Balfour Declaration's goal was to form an enclave of Europeans in the Levant at a strategically vital location: near the Suez Canal. These whites would receive "papers" telling them it was "their" land. Ronald Storrs: "[A] little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism."
In BOTH cases (Europe and the Levant), this was, and still is, divide-and-rule.
Grant favor to some, in return for favors.
Favoratism: Look for it and discover hidden examples of the strategy to rule by division.
The dividers do not care what they "sow," for they do not intend to "reap" any consequences of their own decision themselves.
Scale it up to post 1900 Europe, and see the Divide-and-Rule world.
Make this insidious strategy a household name.
----------------------------------
AVOID THE EQUILLIBRIUM
That is the sole aim of the "affairs of the city" which is per definition the system of politics, which steer a combination of socio-economic, and politico-economic models.
Divide-and-rule/conquer works because not everyone involved knows that they are taking on a role in a power game. That's how the strategy works. Very few people really need to understand it. In English, the principle is called "Useful Innocent/Useful Idiot." From a position of power, you can animate people (usually through money, or ideology) who play a role, but they know not what they do.
The peoples in your neck o' the woods, have been ruled by division since the beginning.
Because it's easier to divide people based on personal differences than to unite them based on their similarities. Strategically ambivalent elites use this to their own advantage. Now the intention is simply to avoid the unity in your society, in order to "rule" over the dissenters, which is the classic "divide and conquer" principle. This strategy is kept under wraps, due to a systemic desire to be "good", and on the "right side of history", and therefore overemphasizing the actions of philanthropists, political doves, peace activists, religious leaders, etc.
At the same time the activities of political hawks sowing divisions are downplayed, relativized, apologized for, mostly by politicians and strategists as the "story tellers" of history. But also by commoners, who simply parrot the stories without thinking them through, and who are NOT privy to the overall strategy (divide-and-rule in all its intricacies and nuances).
The main interest of these people for which we have been fighting wars for centuries has been the relationships between organized systems of finance and power, and systems of resources and manpower. Because united they are the only power that could threaten this group. They must make sure that the unity of others does not happen. ... For these elites ... the greatest fear is an overall creation of a unity of technology, capital and natural resources, and labor, as the only combination that has frightened the elites for centuries. So how does this play out? Well, they have already put their cards on the tilted table. They draw their invisible lines onto society (shoutout to George Friedman, STRATFOR 2015 presentation, for providing the template of this paragraph).
Today all our so-called "leaders" are too weak to create systemic unity, to avoid their "friends" simply drawing lines all over the place, which they cower down to and must obey. Endless wars, constant disagreements, using imperialism to stay on top. Using "levers" of lies and distrust, via power players. Creating favorites: favoring the proxies who bow down and sacrifice themselves for the mastah. Pointing fingers, everywhere else, using the POWER of the mainstream media (footnote).
Divide-and-rule/conquer.
The oldest trick in the book...
Who has the POWER? Who has always had the GEOPOSITIONAL advantage of power to rule? The GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all other "buck catchers" (tools and other instruments of POWER in the Roman era style), but could not be reached themselves at any point in a historical timeline due to a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic- or political advantage?
“Divide-and-rule/conquer” as a standard strategy of power and thus the cause of nearly all conflicts in the world connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Different terms. Different eras. Different systems. Same games...
The opposition that wants unity and equillibrium in a region is the "bad guy" (Black Legend concept).
》》》》》
Footnote:
Giant spinning/framing machine = MIMAC = cyclic dynamical systems of power
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Halon's Razor I live in Europe, so I can only sense the predicament of the average working class Americans.
We in Europe are given strict regulations (on lockdown, varying from country/region), but our governments also support us with unemployment, or short-time work benefits.
So, on the one side there are the limitations on being able to earn a living by own means, and that is balanced by governments putting their money where their mouths are, by insuring that nobody has to fear the economic future (rent, income, etc.) or well-being (health care, etc.).
Of course, it's hypocrisy telling people to stay home, and only giving some (the way I understand it those US citizens who paid taxes last year) a limited means to take care of themselves and family, leaving millions to fend for themselves, or forfeit employer-based health insurance, etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
An "enabler." (role in strategy)
Enabling the system of global "divide and rule" to perpetuate, as explained on the small tier by great minds.
George Carlin BTW is such a great mind. As always it is only the concepts behind the WORDS which are important, NOT the "messenger."
Carlin simply explains the strategy of POWER, the "divide and rule"-strategy of POWER, and he does it in another context, on another tier, on the US domestic political level of events. Search for "George Carlin explains divide and rule." Hilarious, unless of course...one is waging the "but, but, but"-finger around. Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout...
It's how "divide and rule" works. "Period," lol...
Even minions lower down, going around calling other minions "idiots" are a useful tool in this DaR-world, as they ALL end up arguing in endless cycles. Even age-old wisdoms eventually end up in the "divide," and create a rift between the lower tiers of the people, enabling the "rule" of the HIGHER TIERS OF POWER.
In US domestic politics: "We have to defeat this divide-and-rule strategy, which goes back thousands of years. That’s how the few CONTROL the many. Yes, there are divisions over reproductive rights and gun control, but many policies that would transform this country get combined Left-Right support." (edit: combined left-right support for a COMMON cause = "unity")
Four time US presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, Sun Magazine interview, 2019
No, everybody who spots its implementation in power politics, is not "an idiot."
AVOID THE UNITY (TOP DOWN) = AVOID THE COMMON CAUSE FROM BECOMING IMPLIMENTED (BOTTOM UP)
When all the little minions are arguing, pointing fingers, punching it out, then POWERS move in the shadows and implement the OWN goals.
How it works on a lower tier, like at the company level? The same. The bigger the company, the BIGGER the achievements gained by divisions. Corporations even call their own "divide and rule"-setups "divisions." The execs mix all kind of people who naturally don't get along, then offer the resulting lower tiers different pay, different perks, different conditions. Why? What would happen if all the little minions lower down in the company hierarchy saw eye-to-eye on all issues?
Correct.
They will overwhelmingly unite, and then get together to ask for more money, better working conditions, etc, and simply ALL leave the company altogether (unity) if a fair solution isn't offered. Since the company will most likely go bust if ALL lower tier employees leave altogether, the manager/owner class uses the "divide and rule" technique of POWER.
Set the lower tier minions up against each other.
OBSERVE
LEARN
If some of the employees/minions are unhappy, offer a few of the employees/minions better conditions, and create jealousy and envy. If only some of the workers strike, its not a problem: hire strikebreakers to replace them, and then play the long game of dragging feet with negotiations and see who's got the longest breath (strategy)...
EMPIRES work the same way.
You already HAVE the "template" as Carlin explained it.
Only the tiers of POWER changes.
The roles remain exactly the same.
Find out how this template is perpetually implemented, or suffer the consequences.
No "system" will tell YOU, the little minion.
Not your own "empire" which employed it.
They won't inform YOU the little minion and tool HOW it works, and WHY it perpetuates, because it is ALSO their own most powerful strategy.
Why does such a transparent strategy persist?
"Ten percent of any population is cruel, no matter what, and 10 percent is merciful, no matter what, and the remaining 80 percent can be moved in either direction." [Susan Sontag]
The "system" is "self-perpetuating" (Noam Cholmsky).
2
-
2
-
@katarn999 The point?
It's what happens if you make the wrong friends.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
2
-
2
-
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Africa and the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in Africa and the ME) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
At the turn of the century (1900) the Ottoman Empire was "the sick man of Europe".
By the 1930s, the new "sick men" were London and Paris, desperately trying to hold on to empires, long after the days of "empires" were over.
It was a bed they made for themselves at Versailles, and in 1939 they had to sleep in it.
In 1919 there were 2 who were not invited, and in 1939 there were 2 (note, two, not one) who challenged "the system" set up at Versailles...
Stalin gave Hitler a "blank cheque" to invade Poland.
Hitler gave Stalin a "blank cheque" to invade Poland.
And there was another world war.
See what happens if you make decisions concerning others, without consulting them? And so, another round of "as they sowed, so shall they reap"...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The "freedom and democracy"-argument as a cover story for ulterior motives has a long history.
THE PROTOTYPE COLOR REVOLUTION
"For Jefferson, as he wrote to Abigail (in private), it was the end of an epoch. It was the end of one epoch and the beginning of another in Europe too. ... In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution ... who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile..." Adams and Jefferson : a Revolutionary dialogue / Merrill D. Peterson, Digital Library of Georgia Online Plattform
Jefferson and Adams, no doubt the "inspiration" for hundreds who would follow in their wake, such as Victoria "handing out candy to the MAIDAN" Nuland, as "revolutionary training experts", trying to divide other systems for the own gain.
Setting up such "Color Revolutions" throughout their history, and training/supporting revolutionaries in the name of freedom, whilst in reality simply expanding the own spheres of interests by dividing others, has had a long American history. The divide and rule strategy of potentially damaging opposing systems (in the above case, in Europe), are kept in a state of revolutions and upheaval using the "freedom - revolution - democracy" arguments.
Obviously, at this early point in history Washington DC had very little power. But as her power grew, so did the influence of the own divide and rule/conquer techniques.
Asia beware.
Keep a lookout for the tell-tale signs of a US led divide and rule strategy, to set up Asians against each other as a repeat of history.
Making use of the own geographical advantage of distance, the US advance via staging areas (like Hawaii, or the Philippines 1898) continued one step at a time, as other nations were set up against each other with clear intent, as revealed by private discussions and letters...not the kind words and speeches intended for the consumption of the MSM news readers, since even waaaay back then all MSM was already in the hands of the billionaire class.
A few years later...
"From the outset of hostilities, Roosevelt, his pro-Japanese sympathies notwithstanding, privately wished for the continued presence of Russia in East Asia to serve as a counterweight against Japanese expansionism. He perceived that Japanese domination of the region could prove as detrimental to American "Open Door" policy objectives as had the Russian domination. As early as March 19, 1904, he expressed in a letter to his friend Cecil Arthur Spring Rice (then the secretary to the British delegation in St. Petersburg) a hopeful supposition that "the two powers will fight until both are fairly well exhausted, and that then peace will come on terms which will not mean the creation of either a yellow peril or a Slav peril.” The astonishing pace of Japanese arms through the succeeding months gradually convinced the President that a rapid cessation of the war was necessary to preserve Russian influence in the contested region. Writing to Whitelaw Reid, the American ambassador to Britain, on June 5, 1905, Roosevelt admitted that he "should be sorry to see Russia driven out of East Asia,” and averred that "driven out she will surely be if the war goes on.” In sum, he stated to Senator Henry Cabot Lodge on June 16, 1905, "It is best that (Russia) should be left face to face with Japan so that each may have a moderative action on the other." 1994 Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Jonathan Bennett Ault College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences (pp.49-51)
The same so-called good guys of history, because for these powerful US statesmen and their willing local tools, "crimes are those that others commit" (quote Noam Chomsky).
These dividers of entire nations and continents are above the law.
Don't ever expect the American legal system to punish such advocates of divide and rule and the bloodshed it results in.
Don't expect a majority of Americans to call out their leaders for what they are doing.
They either haven't been informed, or don't understand because of their warmongering MSM, don't know, don't care, or even if they did, are not going to stop their leaders...
The overwhelming number of Americans, in the sinecure comfort of their "mommy's basements"-existences, are not like Noam Cholmsky, John Mearsheimer, or Brian Berletic, and many others who know what their government is up to and are actually willing to speak out.
They are the real heroes of history, following in the footsteps of such "prototype whistleblowers" like Smedley-Butler...
The "revolutionary training"-experts care little about the subsequent bloodshed. They are in complete disregard the biblical rule "do not steal/kill", those responsible will "wash hands in innocence", and "point the finger elsewhere" as deflection from their own actions. It is also arguably the cheapest way to expand the own sphere of influence, and gain markets for own products, which is why they do it.
It is a cheap way to aquire spheres of influence because the heavy lifting, and bloodshed, is borne by local individuals who had been set up against each other, using the emotions of individuals to create little systems of "revolutionary"-spririts...
Asians beware...
The "dividers" WILL come for you again.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The story of how the Brits lost their Empire...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...
2
-
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose.
Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation...
Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
Last entity to find this out the hard way was the Kurds, in the Middle East hellhole that evolved after the destabilizing 2003 invasion. Their ally, the faraway "empire" USA decided they'd seen enough body bags, and sunk enough resources (also financial) and withdrew. The effect was predictable to all those with a keen eye on how similar historical events unfolded...
America first...bye bye Kurdistan.
For example, at Versailles Poland decided to ally itself to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests...
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London: Sorry Poland. We're not ready yet. Hang in there...a few more months...
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum.
Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people...
Czech leaders thinking that "faraway empires" would protect them forever and ever...nope.
1938: "Here you go Adolf...have your way. Just don't tickle us too hard..."
Even before that, France decided to ally itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the channel if a conflict evolved.
How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please?"
Or the 1920s British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire.
In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies...
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Read history, and analyze it correctly, not for the sake of current potential short-term gain...
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Then, deepen relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer".
I hope our leaders have learned their lesson, and will stand up to outside attempts at division.
2
-
The time is approaching.
For 50 years after 1945 the citizens of the USA have lived the "good life" at the expense of the rest of the world in the immediate post-WW2 years, when the rest of the planet was so weak it could not avoid US institutions/military/NGOs from imposing themselves, and vacuuming off enormous gain from a position of unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL invincibility...
Now, that ratio is down to 30% of the world's wealth.
It's decreasing...
What does the USA look like today? What will it look like when this amount of wealth of the world they can vacuum off, decreases to 20%, and then 10%? When US citizens finally get closer to a "fair share" of the world's resources/wealth, and have to make do with the same amounts as everybody else, they will finally find out what level of psychopathy they have systemically enabled inside, operating from within their OWN country/state. When they can no longer vacuum off the wealth of the world, in an unfair manner (50% for us, the 6% of the planet), they will start finding out what human nature is like.
When the current 4% of the planet, have to make do with 4-5% of the world's wealth and resources as other nations come and take a fairer share of these resources for themselves, the USA will become everything they have always criticized, and finally discover they are just like everybody else.
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
Ruth Bader-Ginsburg: "To Those Accustomed to Privilege Equality feels like Oppression".
In the coming years, Americans are going to start feel soooooo "oppressed" by the 95% of the planet, who somehow had to manage with the other 50% of the wealth/resources for the fifty or sixty years after World War II.
America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this desirable disparity continues.
Set up "patterns" of European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
CONTROL the access to its own POWER.
Keep others either "down" or "out" per "rulings".
No, that isn't a "conspiracy theory".
It is "divide and rule", in different contexts, on different tiers, and in different eras of history.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
CONTROL the resources, which are the limiting factor (NOT "money" which is simply a "means" to divide)
Find volunteers and local ambitious rulers who collaborate, who "dance for money", and the sky is the limit for the dividers...
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) as the template.
The strategy to avoid unity in Eurasia, or to avoid "avoid war" (note: double negative), has been the same for the past 200 years...
2
-
2
-
As they say, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"...
As Robert Kennedy Jr. notes about the history of the ME:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster
The USA absolutely loooooves Jihadists, as long as they don't act against the USA.
Or, that Biblical logic: "the people shall reap what your leaders have sown", or something like that...
2
-
What connects the topic of this video, as "compartmentalized history" and 99% ancillary details, with the bigger overall European "picture"?
It is "divide and rule" as THE "systems/strategies" tier of things, as the 1% of history that counts...
Exemplary of a divide and rule/conquer strategy:
Entire regions of human beings are used or set up as proxies, as "walls" or "Limitrophe States" to seperate potential areas which might unite.
Wiki: "In modern history, it was used to refer to provinces that seceded from the Russian Empire at the end of World War I, during the Russian Civil War (1917–1922), thus forming a kind of belt or cordon sanitaire separating Soviet Russia from the rest of Europe during the interwar period.[4]... The nations were then "the cards to change hands in big political games" and included the Baltic peoples, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians."
These nations were, and still are today, simply "tools" for the empires who hold the geographical advantage of power.
When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think*** today.
Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer of and over continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers.
These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology).
Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.
Has it ever occured to you that if a policy or strategy "divided Europeans" with a "ruling" (Versailles Treaty), that it actually fits the definition of the the "divide and rule" technique?
The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group. As for Wilson, was he really that naive to think that the large and prominent forces of isolationism would not prevail, and lead to the USA/Washington DC not joining any collectivised system of security for the entire planet? Was there really no "Plan B" in Washington DC?
Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
The "oh so fine" British Lordships thought they could play divide and rule/conquer games with the world, and in the end British citizens and military men lost bigtime, as at the very end of the Empire, their own Lordships took off with all the loot of 400 years, to the tax havens they had created (see Timeline/The Spider's Web re. the history of "tax havens").
While the average Brit had to "scramble for the trenches", the fine lords "scrambled for the tax havens" (notable exeptions in both cases).
The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely.
No, this is not a "yet another conspiracy theory," but elaborated and provided with sufficient evidence, and inductive/deductive reasoning on the other channel/video.
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
**As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the *systems/strategies tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.
2
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. The USA could afford to wait. Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes.
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
2
-
2
-
Strategic ambiguity is generally defined as "purposefully being vague to derive personal or organizational benefit." Zaremba, A. J. (2010).
Or as the street would say, "sticking the finger in every pie possible everywhere, anytime, but mum's the word..."
Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.
Too much intent on short-term gain, at the expense of long-term stability, leads to the foundations of an empire (any "empire") or corporation turning into the "clay" of the famous symbolism/idiom: Warrior with clay feet.
In this regard, the turn of the previous century offers many examples of "nails in the coffin" of the British Empire, and allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 to expire (see below comment), rather than morphing it into something more suitable for the times, is an example of "clay feet" rapidly being created. Along with similar turn of the century examples, like the 2nd Boer War, and not pushing for a more united Europe, being other examples of "clay feet" created which evtl. led to the topling of the "warrior" called the British Empire.
The most compelling argument (on the surface) against renewing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 was made by Canada. Of course the fear of being dragged into of a war between Japan and the USA via London/GB/British Empire, for whatever reason, would have hit Canada hardest. Therefore an argument against a treaty with Japan is compelling...but also false.
At the time, the issue was mainly China.
Fact: The isn't a single example of a nation or state being "forced" into a war its hawks did not already find desirable or inevitable, etc.
It would have been fairly simple to morph the existing Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1911, to exclude any acts of provocation or aggression by Japan. That way, in case it was Japan which was pushing for trouble, London/GB could have taken action to restrict it (by stating that Japan would be on its own if it provoked a war with the USA, and ignoring warnings in re. to such). Another factor often forgotten, is that within the British Empire, the Domininions had gained the rights to declare war themselves. Unlike colonies like India, which London held the right to declare war on behalf of, nobody could force Canada to become involved in a war, and a declaration of neutrality was always an option.
Of course, in a decent world, nobody would dare invade a neutral, so that Canada was safe under all foreseeable circumstances (at least "de jure").
The argument "Empire potentialy drawn into a war started by Japan" at some point after WW1 is invalid, and therefore other reasons for not extending the treaty must have existed, which are clouded by secrecy even up to today.
In regards to keeping the Anglo-Japanese Treaty intact, and granting the Japanese nation the "honor" of becoming equals at Versailles.
According to Machiavelli, it would also have been a wise step towards saving the British Empire (along with ending the short-sighted European habit of "creating pariahs per treaty"). The argument usually raised here is "yeah..but the Japs didn't want everybody to be racially equal, so duh..."
True.
The "totally un-racist" London (lol) could have outflanked the equally racist leaders in Tokyo, who just advocated "racial equality" for themselves of course, and advocated for "racial equality" as a general obligation or declaration of intent, for all races.
Machiavelli...
What did Machiavelli say about the real value of mercenary armies you must pay (money as incentive) to do own bidding?
"And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress; and mercenaries doing nothing except damage." Nicolo Machiavelli, 1505
Obviously, money is a great incentive to "sign up" for something, but it offers less incentive to die for a cause one isn't exactly a fan of...
Starting around 1900, but especially after the financial "slap on the wrist" of WW1, the Lords in London could and should have turned masses of "inferiors per desired outcome" in their crumbling Empire into a "Pound block of equals".
They could have turned the masses of "inferiors" all over the world, into "armies of equals".
The old strategies again proving themselves almost 100% correct, for when the time came (1940) GB found itself "alone on the beaches and in the hills", rather than have millions of "equals" turning up to fight for a common cause. Own previous failures, simply offered the incentive for "masses of inferiors" to "sit on the fence" to await the outcome for own causes.
Combined in mutually beneficial alliances, rather than "inferior mercenies" which came from "colonies", to create mutually protecting dominion-like independent/suzerein states in a re-organized soft-power empire was the option not taken. Unfortunately, the spineless and equally racist "hero lords" in London, unwilling to stand up to wrongs, did not understand even this most simplest of logic, and therefore lost their inheritance (Empire).
"The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonorably, foolishly, viciously." Julian Barnes
Everything you've been made to recite as a "chest thump/cool move"-moment in history, like Versailles or allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty to lapse without a replacement, simply just another nail in their own coffin of "Empire".
The gatekeepers in London (starting "around 1900"), a total failure.
Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.
You don't become "the best", if you finger-point at someone "bad".
You don't become "high IQ", if you consider someone else "low IQ".
You don't become "smart", if you laugh at someone "stupid".
You don't become "more superior" if you look down at someone you've termed "inferior".
2
-
2
-
2
-
Washington DC/Pentagon doesn't CARE if they "win" or "lose." Only snowflakes care about the "winning/losing"-false dichotomy. They have already achieved their goal, which is European/Eurasian hate, fear, anger...
It's "divide and rule."
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or the British Empire's Mackinder/Pivot of History before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their geographical advantage.
With re. to how tools to implement the strategy are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as Kissinger implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combated by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today.
Today as we watch on, the Ukraine is being burnt to the "last Ukrainian soldier" accompanied by cheers of "...but, but, but they had a choice!!"
Poland will be next to be given a "choice," if the Ukraine fails as US/Western proxy and tool, in a long list of previous examples of the Washington DC/Pentagon-steered global strategy.
2
-
Zach Crawford Yes, I actually agreed with you completely on your initial comment.
I "added on" to that, giving a few examples of how causality (cause and effect) is often unforeseable. The consequences of even being allowed to talk about religious bigots trying to force their own narrow-minded opinions onto others will have consequences.
Here I could state a hypothetical: just imagine a Muslim shop owner in a small town, starting to refuse service to Christians (then hiding behind "religion" and "Christians offending him with their presence"). It will raise a shitstorm of outrage.
As far as Im concerned, every Christian who feels deeply offended by others (say members of the LGBT community), should get together, buy some land somewhere, and then live according to their own beliefs ON THIS LAND, and not be allowed to force their opinions on others, in the country as a whole.
Fine by me, if people isolate themselves, live according their own wishes (however, not breaking any laws), because this is also according to the Constitution.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
For hundreds of years the London/British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations, especially "little nations". Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed from dark archives: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images").
The photographs look a lot like Coventry, don't they?
Kagoshima, Canton, Sebastopol (Krim War), and and dozens of others. Such fun to have own leaders coining the term "Copenhagenization" to mock the children they burnt alive while cheering on the historical heroes committing such acts. Victims? Who cares about victims? Right?
From wiki: "Oh, that example of Copenhagen has worked wonders in the world!... I (would) like to see the name of that city become a verb... 'cities will be copenhagenized' is an excellent phrase." William Cobbet
Excellent indeed.
His wish would one day become true, long after he was dead and gone, but surely not according to his dreams...
So around the world they went, turning towns and cities and entire kingdoms into "mere verbs".
Such great fun, bomb(ard)ing everybody else, but not getting bomb(ard)ed oneself.
Terror bombing countless towns and villages as the weapons improved, but the practice remained: creating uncounted victims because nobody cared enough to even count. Later, in Mesopotamia, and Aden, the Sudan, and then euphemistically terming this "Air Policing". Makes you think that terror bombing people unable to defend themselves against superior technology, is really just your friendly neighborhood Bobby keeping the peace, lol...
When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exciting it was to "dodge bullets". The locals defending their own? Such great fun, mowing down weaker nations who had only spears and old fashioned muskets, with cannons and machine guns. Pfffft. Who gives a...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps ("penal colonies" for cheap labor), and then burning evidence of crimes right through into the 1960s (google Operation Legacy).
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down and V-2s rained down on their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
Not so great having own cities and streets turned into mere verbs, right?
William Cabbot, and other British leaders' heartfelt desire to turn cities into mere verbs finally came true.
Londonization, Liverpoolization, Southamptonization, Hullization, Doverization...Coventrization.
Then, all of a sudden, everybody was soooooooo tired of all that "Empire"-stuff.
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they would never forget.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@HaceSunnyDSol Yes, the past few years, US influence has steeply declined, as the power of China increased. That is exactly my point.
The Washington power players of The American Century don't like it.
The USA and Philippines might have their differences, but concerning military matters, and spheres of influence (see the Spratly Island conflict), they are certainly aligned.
With South Korea, the issue is of course that in case of a full-blown war with North Korea, they have most to lose. So when Trump started his "little rocket man" provocations, they obviously quickly chose a path of conciliation with the North.
Trump of course, trying to coerce Kim away from Beijing's hold, being a client state, of course also didn't go unnoticed.
Yes, with Putin it is of course more complex.
But I assume everyone has a price, and selling out North Stream in return for (say) the USA acknowledging Moscow's land grab in the Crimea, and interest in eastern Ukraine, could be (speculative of course) just such a "backroom deal". For example a US veto in the Security Council.
In politics, just like in real life, everything has a price tag attached.
It is simply a question of "offers" and "demands".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Growing up in Christian influenced societies we (as individuals) are taught to see the world as "good vs bad". That is, however, not the way many of our leaders see the world. They look at maps, countries, regions as areas that need to be dominated, controlled or if not possible, to be "balanced out".
Read the policy which predetermined how London would act ("commissions" as well as "omissions") or react to political situations...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
There was only one consideration.
To uphold a balance.
Wilhelm being a "Trump" of the 1890s had little to do with it. At most, it offered a convenient excuse for own politics, always filtered or prioritized by the Policy of Balance of Powers.
All Wilhelm II wanted was an alliance, friendship treaty, Entente, or likewise (say, a N/A Pact), to protect his people from a possible 2-front attack by France and Russia.
A "New Course" had stopped trying to cosy up to expansionist St. Petersburg/Russia...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_von_Caprivi
London would cordially steer away from all diplomatic feelers...
After unification and industrialisation, Germany was already the rival in peace/enemy in war in any continental crisis or war, irrelevant of "who started it".
Nothing Berlin could do, or couldn't do, would change that.
It was a policy, made in London, and strict adherence to it, which caused Europe to fail.
Yup. Our dear elected/unelected leaders.
They even come up with "policies", to hide the existence of other policies...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splendid_isolation
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If anybody wishes to know what is in store for the EU and other American "best fwiends" after 2025, look back in history to what the USA did to the British Empire after WW2, when it was bankrupt and weak. The first victim of the American Century was not as proclaimed and the generally accepted narrative of history, that "it was the USSR" (sic./Truman Doctrine, "Iron Curtain"-narrative), but the British Empire, which was cut down size turning London from "British lion" to "poodle" in around 25 years, using economic warfare.
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Pure unfettered opportunism.
After 1945 the USA used its own might as hammer and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). By 1945, Stalin (Moscow), smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and witnessing the collapse of virtually every other European power, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2. It was overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has self-centred imperialist aims and goals , one eventually destroys all alternatives, and when you try to defend everything, you'll eventually "defend nothing" (Friedrich the Great, re. a false allocation of clout and resources, in grand strategy and geopolitics).
That was preceded in geopolitics by a Washington DC shift away from a non-interventionalist stand on international relations, towards a more active engagement in world affairs and global expansion which incl. European affairs (the study of "Offensive Realism") which started around the year 1900, symbolized by the Spanish-American War (1898). Something London lords happily signed up for with the "Great Rapprochement" (aligned and associated "friends" only, in the "interests"-reality of imperialism). London must have thought the good times were coming, alongside their "new friends" and making the rules for everybody else. Two Albions getting happily engaged...
What could possibly wrong putting your trust in Washington DC?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@randomsalwran4063 Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and lose is closer to what happened.
DIVIDE AND CONTROL
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels, and any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain, simply needed to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. Once "divided", there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Some examples regarding the theory in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors would offer a foothold in Europe.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have such consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement after 1895, amongst other less "valuable" suitors, was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below). The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises made"...lol
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...lol.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics sterted with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947. It is alive and well. It has surrounded every aspect of power politics on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Same with the funding of opposing European leaders and states (for example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s).
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else, while "eating popcorn and chips"...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stiofain88 Yup.
Great Britain, the British Empire, implemented their insidious "divide and rule" policy, wherever they set foot. Their intentions were always to facilitate their own "rule" by setting local people up against each other...
They did so in Ireland, in India, in the ME/Levant. Everywhere they went, leaving trails of crises, strife, and wars.
Imperialists are again, after a short break, "organizing" their "violence" as the imperialistic aim and goal. To attain the rule (de jure) and domination (de facto) of the own systems OVER other independent systems which were in any particular place in the world first (aka a given status quo on the timeline of history).
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do."
Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
Their most powerful strategy is the tried and successful "divide and rule." Beware!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It goes far deeper than that.
It was fundamentally wrong, and because it was fundamentally wrong, there was a price to pay for "the winners" too.
British leaders bombed the British Empire into ruin.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their pre-war markets, and were not going to give them back.
It cost the Brits their Empire...
[See below]
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these gentlemen do.
America's allies and enemies in Europe are still being turned against each other and then burned to ensure that this inequality remains.
This is how “divide and conquer” is implemented.
They pit European and Eurasian nations against each other. The UK and US playbook for more than 100 years. Read Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
Money is their vehicle to allocate resources.
It's the physical resources of the planet which are limited, and who CONTROLS the flow of printable money, controls the flow of resources.
That is how those in CONTROL keep some "down" and others "out" of their own systems of gain.
Obviously, there are not enough resources for the entire planet to live the same lifestyle as those systems in CONTROL.
It has nothing to do with "meritocracy" but is a PREMEDITATED strategy, and how well your systems do financially or systemically (countries/companies/etc.), depends on their LOCATION ON THE MAP (geopolitics), or whether they bow down and "lick boots" or not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage" see footnote), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. They would wait.
This is divide-and-rule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Under the new Trump admin of Neocon imperialists, the USA will pull out of NATO and leave the EU like "Uriah" on the frontlines, to face Russia by themselves.
Read the strategy: it is more than 2,000 years old, but Europeans still don't get that the USA is "not your friend" (loosely quoting Henry Kissinger).
There will be sufficient numbers of Americans cheering and banner waving the resulting "just in isolation"-narrative.
Just like there will always be sufficient numbers of Americans to cheer and banner wave for ANY strategy and ANY narrative.
Don't enshrine your own safety to the American people. They are as clueless as everybody else. Don't enshrine your own future to hordes of self-centred people who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag...
The war in the Ukraine is to a great extent a war of Washington DC's own making. To recognize that, what must look at what did NOT happen after around the year 2000, which was full Washington DC support for a comprehensive European security agreement (incl. Russia), which then lay the foundation for the crisis/war after 2014. No amount of cherry picking and finger pointing will deflect from what is the reality: specific Washington DC/Pentagon/NATO actors did not WANT it. Now, they will withdraw, and leave Europeans in the crosshairs, because European leaders are far too dumb to realize they've been scammed...again.
2
-
2
-
How geopolitics links the wars in the Ukraine and Palestine.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In 1914, Wilhelm II the Superimperialist set out to bring the British Empire to its knees and rule the world.
Of course, everybody knows this was the focus of his entire existence...his sole purpose in life.
Evidence? The famous "September Program" as his crowning achievement in finally getting on with "bringing the British Empire to its knees" which Wilhelm II the Superimperialist suitably commented on and concluded with a speech on the 3rd September ending thus : “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory...”
The crowning achievement of his entire existence and rule of course, as everybody knows, was to finally "bring the British Empire to its knees". Everybody knows Wilhelm II obsessed and fused about the powerful British Empire from the minute he woke up every morning, until the time he fell asleep every night.
Only...
...the speech...
...was not by Wilhelm II, and the date was not 1914.
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt.
On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
After both World Wars, the crowds understandably cheered the end of the war...
Meanwhile as the crowds cheered, in the background, big daddy USA ate up the British Empire and turned it into the junior associate power.
Where are all the BBC documentaries informing the public about these postwar events?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Strange, how few in this comments section address the core message Hasan made.
The core message being that it is the USA meddling in their world.
As Robert Kennedy Jr. notes about the history of the ME:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster
So who was it that went to their world, removed their moderate leaders, and replaced them with religiously indoctrinated nitwits? Correct. Our religiously indoctrinated nitwits who wanted to turn people into tools....lmfao...
The truth is that the USA absolutely loooooves Jihadists, as long as they don't act against the USA.
Or, that Biblical logic: "the people shall reap what your leaders have sown"...
2
-
In 1945, the crowds understandably cheered the end of the war...
Meanwhile as the crowds cheered and jeered, in the background, big daddy USA ate up the British Empire:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Like like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon"...
Where are all the BBC documentaries informing the public about these postwar events?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS.
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Once there is an inpact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, and big business, and Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
2
-
2
-
How geopolitics links the wars in the Ukraine and Palestine.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
2
-
Snowflake comment.
Hasan is right.
Stop the emotional arguments....
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Let’s look at specific countries, and US meddling in THEIR world, shall we?
No more "fluffy emotions"....deal?
2
-
2
-
The "Western moral superiority"-fans need to wake up to the reality that the good ol' days are coming to an end.
In 1945 when everybody else was down in power, and exhausted (reality), the USA could almost single-handedly employ the DIVIDE-AND-RULE STRATEGY over the rest of the planet to skim off the world's wealth at the expense of 95% of the planet, disguising the desirable hegemony as philanthropy and magnanimous benevolence.
As the so-called "Cold War" (name branding, or a recognition factor in emotional appeals) ended, around the year 1990, the USA as sole hegemon could have done their best, but they chose to do their worst (PNAC, and so on).
Because every watershed of history offers the opportunity for positive change.
What is done with the opportunity, exposes the system/s.
By the 1990s, the rest of the planet had arisen from those ashes of 500 years of exploitive colonialism, 30 years of worldwide US/European imperialist wars (1914-45), and more than 40 years of so-called "Cold War" (1947-90) filled with proxy bloodshed which kept everyone in Africa, South- and Central America, and in Asia down in power, and which affected every corner of the globe...except the USA and a few "new superior European favourites" (lol) which could act as financiers using their distance from the war zones they instigated.
During the 1990s a watershed appeared, and the opportunity was allowed to slip by, accompanied by a host of apologetics by the "pointing fingers in-crowd" wishing to keep others either down in power or unity, or out of their systems of rule and control.
Now the good ol' days are over.
If you're not in the club of US/collective West "superiority" (sic.), just remember: The USA/collective West have never had any ulterior motives (lol, just kidding).
All they have ever wanted to ever do, was "save the world from the bad guys" (more lol).
It IS just like that, because the WEST says so themselves, then don't argue (super lol).
"In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population ...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
Obviously, simple math means that it left the rest of the world (around 94%) to somehow get along with the rest left over. To have considered that as even remotely fair, regardless of any other circumstances, speaks volumes. Today it is still roughly 30% in the hands of 12% of the global population, as "the rest/no the WEST" rises. Again, silence on this speaks volumes. How were in the past (Age of European Empires), and are the 1%-ters in the West and their international friends TODAY (global elites/globalists) going to ensure that this desirable and ADMITTED (quote) "inequality" and dollar hegemony continues?
THAT is the question they are trying to deflect from, with endless cycles of circular reasoning.
HOW TO HANG ON TO THE "GOOD OL' DAYS."
Answer: With the divide and rule technique of top-down power, in efforts to split the main BRICS nations, and bring down any other rising and stable region of power the planet which refuses to be vacuumed off like a giant hoover (corporatism), splitting it apart with a NEW COLD WAR, then blame everybody else.
They have destroyed multipolarity once, with Versailles and other top-down measures, and they seek to avoid the rise of multipolarity again.
The superior USA/collective West, where you have the freedom of speech to say what you want, and those who rule the world (haves with the money) have the freedom to fire you. Guess who has the true power?
Or, in other words, they have the money to hire you for a well-paid position (the "carrot" of incentive) if you say what they like. The "stick" will fire you, should you criticize the mastah too overtly...
If you live in Africa, Asia, or anywhere else, don't rely on any "superior westerner" (sic.) or local collaborator within the DIVIDE-AND-RULE setup of the planet to tell what I will inform you about: How their power works.
People who are confronted with uncomfortable truths, simply fall into the "let's not talk about that"-mode because they WANT to point their fingers somewhere else, which is a cognitive bias or fallacy in reasoning.
"When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie." - Yevgeny Yevtushenko.
When the truth of the new reality finally sets in they fall silent and do not speak, confusing the concept of silence with the concept of strength.
Some say the most dangerous of all animals are the stupid. I say, it is the silent.
I am warning the peoples of Africa, and Asia, and South & Central America against my own so-called leaders and the people who follow these types.
Regardless of all the apologetics, the USA/collective West are still imperialist systems to the core, and it is exposed by the mainstream rhetoric: There has never been a war of systemic and ideological expansion these imperialist supporters did not like, revel in as "fighting bad guys", or ignore, or apologize for. Notice how their "Cold War" (name branding) was your "hot wars" (strategy of power). The mainstream did not care enough for REAL changes 200 or 100 years ago, and they did not care enough 50 years ago, and they did not care 25 years ago, as they do not care today either. Lindey's Law on full display. As long as the wars are far away, and they have their "cheap tanks of gas" and good life, do not expect them as collective to care (exceptions to the rule are of course highlighted by the MSM of the liberal imperialist system.
In fact, what a crowd of lessons do the present miseries of the world teach us. Never to have an hereditary leader of any sort; never to let a citizen ally himself with outsiders; never to call in foreign nations to settle domestic differences; never to suppose that any nation will expose itself to war for you for free. There is always a price tag.
They are beyond help, because their entire setup is dogmatic. "We are always right." Therefore, balance them out with own systems of power and unity.
Then when they come for you, fingers waging, you can actually send them home without consequences.
Be nice, but send them home, and solve your own problems peacefully as a commons.
Never fall for the rhetoric, because they will NEVER accept that their own constant eternal wars of DIVISION are evil, never mind how many die or end up as refugees, without shelter or in hunger.
Balance them out. If not, you will suffer.
Support multipolarity, and defend it against the dividers who WILL show up.
The so-called "Rules Based Order"?
"Neocons" or "imperialists" or whatever: they invent new "name brands" to deflect from an age-old strategy of power: "divide" all others with "rulings".
Today these "200 years of rulings" have caused 35.700.000.000.000 dollars of debt.
Fact: The "debt" is owed by the US taxpayer.
Fact: The GAINS are created by a tiny minority who "invest" this all over the world, mainly TAX FREE.
Guess who is "the loser" again and perpetually?
(Suggestion: Watch George Carlin explain how divide-and-rule works, here on yt. Nutshell version: burden you collectively, run off with all the effin' money individually)
2
-
Churchill was a TERRIBLE strategists.
Luckily there were a few saner people around to reign him in.
1940 = Operation Winfried led to Nazi invasion of Norway (1941/42 troops stationed here invaded the SU and aircraft based here sank hundreds of Allied ships bound for Murmansk)
1941 = withdrawal of troops from N. Afr. to Greece (which had already defeated the Italians), meant costly N.Afr. campaigns right up to 1943. The Italians would have already folded in 1941, and Tripoli taken, not for the decision to divert troops to Greece.
1941 = sent 2 battleships into an airspace under Japanese control (Prince of Wales/Repulse)
1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the ENTIRE British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was RAW MATERIALS which limited German industrial production).
1943 = The ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that ONLY soldiers and tanks created FACTS. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tuban plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
I could carry on for a few more hours, but my fingers are tiring ...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@shirakou1 Hasan is correct.
He might not have chosen the right right words, but in reality he is correct.
"America" is a country, an inanimate object.
Yes, it "deserved" what it got.
Even the Bible said "reap what you sow".
The west, starting after WW1 started meddling, invading, playing divide and rule, destabilized, drawing lines on the map, imposing leaders and imposed mass immigration by Europeans onto them ....
First GB and France as the alpha male, then later the USA joined in, meddling in their world. Nobody asked them.
Not the other way around. I don't see any Arabs dictating our leaders, exploiting oil on Texas, or drawing lines on the map, carving off chunks of California, giving it to Mexico...
Oil, was the root cause of that western meddling.
The birds let loose at the end of WW1, came home to roost...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
chained2it Im still in 1919, the start of the current conflict.
Note here, that at ANY particular point in time, nobody can foresee the future.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy
Therefore, the people who lived in 1919 ONLY had the world around them to make judgements.
Correct?
So, what did they see?
Correct.
Colonialism.
White people cutting off the hands of child laborers in the Kongo, Hawaii (an independent Kingdom) being annexed, Native Americans stuffed into dusty desert reservations, Moro Massacres if "naughty natives" refused to pay taxes, chased into to the desert to die of thirst (Herero) or starve (India) , children stuck into concentration camps (Boer War), etc.
THAT is what influenced opinions back then, and why local inhabitants did not WANT whites to rule them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Q: Which war started with a lie?
A: ALL of them...
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Let’s look at US meddling in THEIR world, and Google "wars for oil", shall we?
Or, simply ask yourself the question.
As a "life, liberty and happiness" kinda guy, would you personally have accepted even half the sh*t your leaders have imposed onto others over the past century or so?
Nope...probably not...
2
-
@nwfreefly Yes, remember "good ol' Uncle Joe" and the "brave Russian people" of WW2?
Five years later, and guess what :-)
Fifty years of Cold War, "hot wars" (Vietnam, Korea), proxy wars, trillions in defense spending, hundreds of thousands of body bags, refugees, more refugees, and millions of broken souls...
IMO, it has to with the fundamental misinterpretation of a slogan ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend") when it comes to ideologues.
The simple fact is that ideologies that hate everything we in the west stand for (communism in WW2, or radical Islamist during the Cold War) do not make for good friends.
Whatever short term gain one might envision, is more than cancelled out by the long term disadvantages.
The slogan is a populist tool or recipe for eternal war, because it means arming, training, equipping, and financing tomorrow's enemies.
Simple answer?
If you have 2 enemies who are also enemies, stay out of it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Around 1900 Europe's problems originated in London: other powers' security issues were of little or no concern to the lords.
London's position: the default enemy in any war threatening the continental balance of power was the most likely to succeed.
London did not care about "right" or "wrong".
The main consideration in peacetime was who had the strongest economy/military.
Answer = balance it out, by "jumping in the scale" opposing the biggest "weight".
The main consideration in a war involving the main powers was who was winning.
Answer = balance it out, by "jumping in the scale" opposing the biggest "weight".
The strongest state/alliance = Germany/Austria-Hungary (alliance) = most likely to succeed = the main rival in peace = the default enemy in war.
There would be no comprehensive European security agreement of any kind around the year 1900, when it bacame painfully obvious that one was needed (global shift in the balance of power).
London would see to it.
There would be no comprehensive continental European security agreement of any kind either (in order to at least locally address imbalances).
London lords would turn up to "make a pig's breakfast" out of it.
And they would always find a few "just best fwiends/no obligations"-fools falling for their tricks.
John F. Kennedy once said that "those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable".
Of course he was refering to domestic US politics.
I wonder if he also grasped that he was also perfectly explaining Europe "around 1900".
For those who make peaceful evolution (of power, states) impossible will make violent evolution inevitable.
And today?
Just imagine.
A comprehensive European security agreement signed around the year 2000 could have saved Europe from all this stress and chaos we are experiencing today. Note: A comprehensive European security agreement should have included Russia, seeing that Russia is in Europe.
There is even an insider joke about NATO, which is that it intends to "keep Germany down, and Russia out".
That is literally how "divide and rule/conquer" works (see below comments thread).
Effect: Washington DC/USA stays the master of European affairs, and EU "partners" are only nominally independent, just as policy was implemented after WW2 (see below comments thread). NATO is now just another tool in the toolbox of Washington DC's "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy going back all the way to the 18th century when the USA was first established.
Note that the words "to rule" has different meanings: one of which is to have an advantage in power, meaning that what one wants carries far more weight that what those "ruled to" want.
After 1776: US leaders realized that the key to their own survival lay in keeping Europeans as divided as possible by whichever limited means at their disposal at the time.
After WW2: US leaders realized that the key to their own continued superiority lay in dividing Europeans any which way they could. Russians are of course Europeans.
NATO has been "morphed" by the reality of the end of the Cold War.
From "unite the survivors of WW2 in Western Europe against communism" (Truman Doctrine, 1945) to become after the end of the Cold War (1990s) simply a tool to divide Europe for the continued gain and superiority/domination of the American Century.
Little "weany Europeans" bowing down to "big daddy 'merica" will pay the price, while the USA sits on the fence eating popcorn and chips, awaiting the outcome...
The only thing which Europeans had exchanged, was their "divider and ruler".
The oldest game in the book.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@OleLeik Even without making the mistake of using hindsight, it was a mistake.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
It is an accepted fact that it was the Oil Campaign and the Transport Plan which did have an effect on victory, not "flattening city centres".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Plan
Both of which vehemently opposed by Harris.
He believed these to be "panacea".
Well..."panacea" helped win the war....
That should have been logical, even before the war started, because the continent lacked raw materials for an extended war.
The entire reasoning behind Hitler's "Plan Ost" was to gain raw materials. Obviously, he didn't have any, so the entire theory of "curbing German production" was flawed.
German production was already "curbed" by a lack of raw materials.
If he had any, he wouldn't have attacked the SU (Barbarossa).
2
-
@OleLeik That is what one can refer to as the "canned logic" of "the narrative".
It is incorrect though, for the simple fact that German production was not mainly limited by the bombing, but by 2 main factors: manpower and raw materials.
As long as "manpower" was (say 75%) occupied on the Eastern front, production would not rise.
As long as Germany did not break out of Europe, raw materials would determine the limitations of production.
Nothing else.
In case you disagree, why was German/Austrian-Hungarian production so low when compared to Allied production in WW1?
(note, no strategic bombing at all)
Even the "helping the poor Russians" argument is flawed.
An 88mm gun needed a tractor in order to serve as front line weapon, and Germany couldn't build either sufficient tractors, nor man them, nor have enough fuel for them had they been built...
And with that simple reality, the entire argument of "weapons on the front lines" falls flat.
Have you read my top comment yet? (The one starting with "the big picture")
Do you realize who did benefit from wasting away the resources of the British Empire?
2
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. Today, this has transformed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBERALS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. This branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries.
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
For 100 years, settler colonists (Irgun, Lehi, Palmach, etc.) cooperating with the hegemon, carried out such practices of harassment, trying to coerce the original inhabitants to flee so they could occupy the land.
A hundred years ago the British Empire dispatched psychos like Orde Wingate (Special Night Squads) who took pleasure in random shootings, or waterboarding opposition to the British Empire in oil, sending the tortured back to their villages to report about the actions of their oppressors.
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron Bushell have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined.
Don't delay.
Start today.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@simonbagel In 1945, the crowds understandably cheered the end of the war...
Meanwhile as the crowds cheered and jeered, in the background, big daddy USA ate up the British Empire:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Like like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon"...
Where are all the BBC documentaries informing the public about these postwar events?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mitchrichards1532 "Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics.
The real question that should be asked, and therefore the premise of any debate is: Was it wise at the time?
To which the simple answer is "no".
They ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
London had played the "balancing games" for centuries, and finally lost.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sanjugupta7887 Crises and wars is what one gets if one wants to rip/deceive a "sphere of influence" out of the hands of a rival.
WW1 came about because Imperialist Russia wanted to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence out of the hands of" Austria-Hungary.
It "started" with a slug-out between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, and "ended" in WW1.
WW2 came about because of Hitler/Nazi Germany and Stalin/the SU wanting to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence out of the hands of" the West/empires (GB/France)".
It "started" with a slug-out between Germany and Poland, and "ended" in WW2.
The War in the Ukraine came about because the USA/West/NATO wanted to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence" out of the hands of Russia.
It "started" with a slug-out between the Ukraine and pro-Russian seperatists proxies (fueled by the USA/West/NATO), and will end in a "2nd Cold War" (hopefully "only" a "cold war").
An eternal game...
Friends one day, enemies the next, friends one day, enemies the next, friends one day, enemies the next...
Why bother trying to read "25,000 books" (Christopher Clark) only about a specific topic, say WW1?
Why philosophize endlessly about whether it is "one left arm" or "only one ball" which "starts wars", if one can simply point at "greed" or the desire to "rule" over others?
Irrelevant of the context and time (truisms). Leaders "defending the indefensible" will always be around.
"Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible – there will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain." - 06/09/2022 Rep. Elizabeth Cheney (R) Wyoming
They were there 100 years ago, and they were there 20 years ago when war could have been avoided by simply being honorable and stopping the ongoing process of "sphere of influence" stealing, using every trick in the book to disguise their actions.
2
-
Why is anybody surprised about the current global mess, accompanied by ample finger pointing? The USA and the entire collective West is a divide-and-rule Mecca for the ultra-rich who practice it.
"As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully constrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters."
In case anybody living in the present, actually thinks this is such a familiar-sounding reality of the present, I suggest searching the origin of this quote (see footnote). Today, you (reading this) are watching the full glory of aggregated fiat capital, creating little minions for the steering, managing, moderating, empire, and you are already a minion/buck catcher, unless to belong to a very small, select circle.
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided people are easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy. Lies (incl. "lying by omitting") and deceit are an integral part of the strategy.
----------------------------------------
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Not every single individual, group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors. The people's share in divide-and-rule working is quite simple: unfortunately too many people would rather believe a lie that sounds nice, than the truth which sounds even slightly negative.
-------------------
Footnote:
Grover Cleveland (POTUS), State of the Union, 1885
Granted, not as famous as Eisenhower with his warning of the Military Industrial Complex, and therefore on par with Adam's warning about the USA becoming the "dictatress of the world", one thing all these warnings have in common: They were all of them, ignored...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If you live in a frontier fort composed of civilians, intended to surround a concentration camp, then what did these settler colonists expect? Neighbors who bring them candy and flowers?
Hamas was created by Israel with a divide and rule intention, to undermine the authority of the PLO. Search that and one will find hundreds of articles, incl. from Israeli sources, which will confirm this intentional Israeli strategy of deceit and division.
Gaza is the world's biggest concentration camp, ringed in by a cicle of Kibbutzim, inhabited by settler colonists. If you want to know what's going on, ask a Jwe. They will honestly tell you straight in your face, and dare you to resist: "We are a generation that settles the land, and without the steel helmet and the cannon's fire we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home.” Moshe Dayan
The intention is ethnic cleansing, and a pretext is needed to vacate the land under the terror of cannon fire, in order to create the next concentration camp, ringed in by the next ring of Kibbutzim, inhabited by the next selection of future "victims of terrorism"...
What you are witnissing today, is the own biblical "logic" of "reap as you sow". Israel INTENDED to "sow division" between the peoples of Palestine, and now they are "reaping" the effects. Not a nice personal tale, agreed, so sorry about the personal misfortune of living in a frontier fort, and choosing to become a tool of encirclement.
But the own personal decisions to live a life as soldiers of fortune, using the own families as a human shields, whilst surrounding an open-air concentration camp as a tool of strategic encirclement, sometimes have unhappy consequences...
2
-
2
-
2
-
Of all the Asian BRICS states, India has the most dividable peoples, and is therefore the most dividable nation.
In the Grand Chessboard (1997), Zbigniew Brzezinski elaborated how Russia needed to be carved up into regions.
Obviously these would all be less powerful than a united and strongly centrally controlled Russia, and could be potentially steered like "next Ukraines" (strategy of the proxy) to encircle China, the true Washington DC/Pentagon goal.
Indians beware.
Beware of the "dividers" from outside (USA/EU/NATO) and their promises and the alure of their money.
Heed the allure of the divide-and-rule technique of power looking for tools.
What they want, is "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer Theory) which they can pay ("buck passing") hoping for a showdown war which would then destabilize or weaken ALL of East Asia.
Brazil and South Africa are also "easily dividable" but are not in Eurasia, the focal point of the USA/collective West divide-and-rule intentions.
------------------------------------------------------------
For the USA/collective West, it has always been about the control of vital nodes and links, so that the control of the entire world was in their own hands. The essence was to turn the entire world into a "giant vacuum cleaner" which would suck the wealth off the rest of the world, in one direction: upwards, to themselves. The accompanying myth, also peddled to the own population back in the USA/EU, is that some of that would come "trickling down" to believers...
The basis of their power for the last 500 years.
Those who can DIVIDE all others, will RULE.
Note, they used the divide-and-rule technique to destroy and subvert China and India during the era of Western Imperialism. They WILL try again.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Fact is that Trump, or any other previous admin, did not stop this "(systemic) slow march".
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemony.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quiet or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
Just claim hero status for the self, and blame everybody else for everything which goes wrong.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Already predicted. Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Just like the 1930s "divider in chief", the UK, was no longer as immune from "weapons of long range destruction" (bombers) as it was around the year 1900 while big guns still ruled the world and there were no large fleets of bombers, the USA today as "divider in chief" is no longer as immune from "weapons of long range destruction" as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s anymore.
HISTORY RHYMING
Today. there are nukes.
By golly, who would've guessed...
Regardless of what some "experts" proclaim, the logic of the "bomber will always get through" of the 1930s, is repeated today, and these various types of nukes will always get through in sufficient amounts to wipe any power off the map. Even if it survives as state or country, it will no longer be a world power. All it needs is sufficient numbers of MIRVs in order to sacrifice some (incl. duds to attract/distract/overwhelm the air defense), so that the mass of the rest will reach their intended targets. So the "experts" tell you their Patriots will stop them. These Patriots and other missiles and air defense systems can be overcome by implementing a very simple programmable and un-jammable multiple-layered attack, as first-strike, and the first incoming Russian nukes, stationed just 15 minutes flight-time away, will act as multiple air-burst to wipe out any attempt to intercept them in the radius of 100 miles, and the following strikes in their wake a few seconds later will mostly get through.
Keep on poking the bear.
Get the Ukraine to try and blind the Russian early-warning radar systems.
Keep on "poking by proxy" and YOU will find out, because you are ruled over by idiots.
Keep on poking, and find out that you've always been ruled by chest-thumping slime-balls and psychopaths: not all of them, but enough to implement age-old strategies of power, intended to gain as others lose. Just don't for a minute think, the default "other side" doesn't know what you are up to...
Then, it doesn't matter anymore how one chest-thumps around about how "superior" or "always right" one is.
It doesn't matter anymore if you live in the EU or Northern Europe, going "but, but, I'm sooooo innocent."
It doesn't matter if you chant "trust our leaders, cos they know better cos cos we democracies..."
It doesn't matter anymore about how the few survivors brag about "how man wussians they also got".
Then it doesn't matter anymore, because your leaders will no longer be in a position to implement wrongs per "new Versailles" (currently planned in Switzerland for mid-June) and get away with it. Of course, they are going to insist on only negotiating with the true representatives of the peoples of Russia, who truly desire peace just like our own superior Western leaders who have only always wanted peace, cos they said so, and since that turned out soooooo great last time around (WW1).
The conference is of course a total waste of taxpayer money, just like Versailles was 100 years ago (1919).
Before Moscow gets into that position of becoming "carved up and used" as a tool to encroach on China, it will wipe YOU off the map FIRST.
You (systemically) no longer have a geographical position of power.
In this scenario, qui bono to make the best of the subsequent nuclear winter?
That will be what happens if there are true fools pouting their "last man standing" logic as "fair enough", but cannot apply the logic and reasoning behind it even if their own lives depended on it.
Guess who will live longest in the "nuclear winter"-scenario? (theory)_
Short answer: NOT you.
Longer answer: The same class of people who never ended up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world, apologized for and sanctioned by the "biggest loser class in history, who don't know, or don't care, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names", same as 20 years ago, 50 years ago... 100 years ago, 200 years ago...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bolivar2153 London set up Europe for disaster, and went to war twice, by own admission, to "balance powers" on the continent...
London's standpoint, by own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, for those lacking the necessary comprehension skills: the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
And so they played the "balancing games".
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
How absolutely funny...
They gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire.
Good riddance.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They "hopped on the scale", in times of peace and in times of war, whatever side was the weakest, to counter the ...ahem..."dictatorship" of the strongest country/alliance/power.
And so, they "hopped" their way into extinction.
GOOD. RIDDANCE.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The USAAF bombed with the intention to curb the German/Axis fighting potential.
The RAF (Bomber Command) bombed with the intent to destroy Germany as a "power".
Unfortunately London did not seem to understand nor follow their own geopolitical "logic", and somehow missed the USA's rise "across the pond".
Or the fact that there might be some long-term grievances resulting from history.
After WW1, the British Empire had already descended one rung, and after WW2 they would lose their markets to the USA, their sphere of interest in Central Europe/Baltics/most of the Balkans to Moscow, the nr.1 position as "ruler of the world, the privilege of "Pax Britannica, both to the USA", their self-determined role of "balancer of powers" for the continent, their stated goal of being the "decider of wars" on the continent, and finally their "Empire".
Sad...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@FreeIsraelll So Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickegruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
2
-
2
-
"Right or wrong", or "Was it a war crime", or "Who started", is all irrelevant.
Our elites have divided us "commoners" and "grunts", and are agitating behind closed doors, while we do the squabbling...
Because there's always a big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Google: britannica & balance-of-power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to play "balancing games" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...you loose your empire to the new kids in town...
From the unmistakable "Nr.1" in 1900, down to "merely on par" with Washington DC after WW1, down to "third fiddle" during the Cold War. All in less than a single lifetime...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. The world was divided in "East" and "West".
And down went the British Empire too...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickegruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The reason GB joined both WW1 and WW2, was not to protect "poor Belgians" or "poor Poles".
Both Belgium and Poland were simply "tools" to protect the Empire, and massive blunders of competence. Because by around 1900 the official policy of "Balance of Power" (the aristocracy "carving up" people by drawing lines on maps of "taxpayers") had been superseded by new ideas. "Nationalism" and "Liberalism".
People were better educated, and had developed a sense of pride in the own existence, and were no longer willing to be "carved up" by the ruling elites...
London and France was still in the 17th Century though....
That becomes perfectly clear by the actions of November 1918, when the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was repudiated. The reasoning was to avoid German (Berlin and Vienna) hegemony over the area known as the "Heartland".
The first chance for the nations of the Ukraine, the Caucasus, and the Baltic States to break free from Moscow, and eventually gain true long-term independence for the people living here.
Note, Germany after WW1 was a democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
London and Paris cared nothing for the millions who died here at the hands of commie crooks. As long as Berlin did not control it - that was all that mattered...
The ulterior motive?
The Royal Navy.
Those who had invested billions of pounds over the years to forge a tool of "blockade" would never accept German hegemony of the Heartland, because it would have made the entire RN obsolete overnight, since the Heartland cannot be blockaded to bow down and submit to a blockade.
Yup.
Just imagine.
The Allies were the "good side" of WW1...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give a weak mind money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And if you lie, steal, and kill, then that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
2
-
2
-
Start pulling the rug from underneath their feet...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The time is approaching.
For 50 years after 1945 the citizens of the USA have lived the "good life" at the expense of the rest of the world in the immediate post-WW2 years, when the rest of the planet was so weak it could not avoid US institutions/military/NGOs from imposing themselves, and vacuuming off enormous gain from a position of unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL invincibility...
Now, that ratio is down to 30% of the world's wealth.
It's decreasing...
What does the USA look like today? What will it look like when this amount of wealth of the world they can vacuum off, decreases to 20%, and then 10%? When US citizens finally get closer to a "fair share" of the world's resources/wealth, and have to make do with the same amounts as everybody else, they will finally find out what level of psychopathy they have systemically enabled inside, operating from within their OWN country/state. When they can no longer vacuum off the wealth of the world, in an unfair manner (50% for us, the 6% of the planet), they will start finding out what human nature is like.
When the current 4% of the planet, have to make do with 4-5% of the world's wealth and resources as other nations come and take a fairer share of these resources for themselves, the USA will become everything they have always criticized, and finally discover they are just like everybody else.
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
Ruth Bader-Ginsburg: "To Those Accustomed to Privilege Equality feels like Oppression".
In the coming years, Americans are going to start feel soooooo "oppressed" by the 95% of the planet, who somehow had to manage with the other 50% of the wealth/resources for the fifty or sixty years after World War II.
America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this desirable disparity continues.
Set up "patterns" of European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
CONTROL the access to its own POWER.
Keep others either "down" or "out" per "rulings".
No, that isn't a "conspiracy theory".
It is "divide and rule", in different contexts, on different tiers, and in different eras of history.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
CONTROL the resources, which are the limiting factor (NOT "money" which is simply a "means" to divide)
Find volunteers and local ambitious rulers who collaborate, who "dance for money", and the sky is the limit for the dividers...
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) as the template.
The strategy to avoid unity in Eurasia, or to avoid "avoid war" (note: double negative), has been the same for the past 200 years...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In 1938 an opportunity arose for Hitler to implement a limited war against Czechoslovakia. Moscow was occupied by a border conflict with Japan in the east (Lake Khasan/July 1938), and a silent threat hung over London/Paris, by the presence of the Legion Condor (Gibraltar). An army of 15,000 men, with tanks and air support....
That window however, closed as quickly as it had appeared when the battles in the East did not result in a full-scale war, and Hitler grudgingly accepted Chamberlain's offer to negotiate a settlement (since he had already started brewing trouble with Heinlein in the May Crisis).
The threat of a 2-front war for Stalin not materializing in 1938 (war with Japan) was the determining factor for Hitler to accept talks about the future of Czechoslovakia.
Hitler didnt have a choice but to dump Case Green (Invasion of Czechoslovakia). Hitler chickened out at Munich, NOT London/Paris...
Oh, and that "I saw my enemies at Munich", and "they are worms".
LOL, just the typical face-saving tough talk of a despot who feared losing respect from his assembled "yes men". He voiced these opinions to his inner circle, as a way of covering his obvious embarrassment of having to bow to the "soft talking", but "big stick carrying" man with an umbrella....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@matsjonsson9492 NOW is a result of the past.
You can thank your ever meddling, ever bombing, ever invading dumb American friends for your predicament.
From globalreach
"In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria."
In the same way, WE in the west suffer from what dumb 'murica constantly sows -- hate, division, war...
2
-
2
-
2
-
@miguelfernandez-mn9tr I'm aware of that Cold War excuse, buy there are 2 problems with that argument, concerning the current problem of Islamic terrorism.
1) The Cold War stopped in 1990, but the USA pretended as if nothing happened, and was "business as usual".
A golden opportunity to leave the area was missed.
2) The ME need never have been a Cold War battlefield in the first place.
As Robert Kennedy Jr. notes about the history of the ME:
[start of quote] "For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster" [end of quote]
US leaders wanted to turn people living in the ME into tools of a policy of "divide and rule" and that backfired according to that Biblical logic: "the people shall reap what your leaders have sown"...
2
-
2
-
2
-
@matsjonsson9492 I'm not claiming an ultimate figure.
When I write "99%" I might as well write "overwhelming majority".
There is no way of telling how many Muslims are being radicalized today, as a result of us/the West meddling in *their world*.
Remember Newton? YOU wrote it, so don't tell me that you don't understand the principle of the counter action, as a result of previous actions.
The apologists for western aggression in their world, even after all objective reasoning for such meddling vanished at the end of the Cold War, is what made terrorism *worse*.
Read the comment at the top of the page.
It was the USA and their mentality of wanting to rule the world that caused the problem to get worse. And it will get even more worse, the more violent it gets.
Those arseh*le friends of your (dumb control freak 'muricans and their willing lapdogs) is what caused this mess.
A society (any society, even a predominantly Muslim one) is more than able to control the radical elements among them if left alone (see any secular Muslim state NOTE: SECULAR MUSLIM STATE, just to head off your constant dumb '...but, but, but...look, look, look...")
The West meddling from outside, providing the radical fringes (radical Islam) with the evidence that there is some truth to what is being preached...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Today, the Ukraine is becoming "the new Vietnam".
Stages of the Vietnam War:
1950 to 1964: drawn in (aka...ahem..."advisory")
1965 to 1968: combat (aka "buckets of blood")
1969 to 1975: localizing (aka "Vietnamization"), or the "let's gtfo of here"-stage...
China and the UdSSR were of course in the background, knowing full-well that the USA could not escalate a limited war into a total war, by using nuclear weapons to win. For Beijing and Moscow, the desired effect/outcome was hoped: "(financially) bleed the USA to death" using "buckets of blood" of a 3rd party.
"Vietnamization was a policy of the Richard Nixon administration to end U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War through a program to 'expand, equip, and train South Vietnamese forces and assign to them an ever-increasing combat role, at the same time steadily reducing the number of U.S. combat troops' ..." (wiki)
Of course, previously the opposite of Vietnamization had happened: that of "becoming dragged into" wars fought elsewhere (see below comments thread).
Such an effect of "getting dragged into wars" were either the effect of own meddling, or completely through no own fault or intrusive/unwarrented interverence. The latter is however hardly ever the case. Most wars are the effect of some or other form of meddling in the affairs of others, often disguised or covered up.
"Vietnamization" of wars is nothing else than the rhetoric which US Representative Dan Crensaw stated right out in the open (not verbatim, but close enough): "what is wrong with letting their soldiers die, to save our soldiers"...
It's the age-old strategy of "letting others fight".
The attitude problem in Europe in 1914 which had already lead to WW1.
History repeating.
Wait for it...
2
-
2
-
2
-
Remember all their victims.
As millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron Bushell have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Eastern Europe and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
2
-
2
-
Noam Chomsky: “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
The scope of arguments should not be limited by the limitations of other people's spectra.
Why?
"In order to bring a nation to support the burdens incident to maintaining great military establishments, it is necessary to create an emotional state akin to war psychology. There must be the portrayal of an external menace or of internal conditions rendered intolerable by the unjust restraints of foreign nations. This involves the development to a high degree of the nation-hero nation-villain ideology and the arousing of the population to a sense of the duty of sacrifice." - John Foster Dulles (one half of the sibling psycho duo, together with Allen Dulles)
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind." ― Edward Bernays
The end goal is simple. "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey
They use mind tricks.
It's not rocket science figuring it out.
The ruling class wants YOU to believe the exact opposite of what is really happening is "truth", today as well as in the past.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
notalloftheabove First of all, we have to clarify a misconception. The deal with Iran was not to ' give them a nuclear weapon'.
The deal will allow Iran to continue its nuclear development for peaceful purposes, under STRICT supervision, to prepare the country for the end of the age of oil.
First off, who are we to tell them that they are not allowed to use nuclear power to solve the energy problem?
Secondly, even IF you have the suspicion that (despite the STRICT control) that 'sneaky muslims' (hint, hint) are going to misuse the deal to build a nuke, what the hell are they going to do with it?
Using it, would mean instant annihilation.
Are you saying that each and every one of the 1,7 billion Muslims are fanatics, and each and every one of their leaders is crazy?
That would be the epitome of xenophobia buddy.
Which 'Muslim government' has ever broken a treaty or deal made? Turkey? Indonesia? Pakistan? Dubai? Saudi Arabia?
They might have laws we don't agree with, but not sticking to international treaties is something entirely different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
notalloftheabove ONLY the nukes convinced them they couldn't win?
The Japanese didn't enter the war, hoping they could WIN.
They entered the war, hoping they could settle for a compromise peace, based on the mistaken notion that Americans wouldn't have the stomach to face hundreds of thousands of deaths trying to fight back.
Completely different concepts.
The Japanese already knew they had lost, as soon as mid-1944, when the first peace feelers went out.
Are you really saying that the fact that almost the entire Japanese surface fleet had been wiped out, that US aircraft carriers were sailing around Japanese waters at will, attacking whatever they wished, that US submarines had wiped out the merchant marine, that US aircraft were employing an extremely successful coastal mining campaign, that Japan had no more allies since Germany had surrendered, that the only hope of still finding conditional surrender (Russian neutrality) was gone, every single city had already been razed to ground....none of these things played a role?
That must have been a brain fart on your part.
FYI, the Japanese government wanted to surrender before the bombs were dropped (3 for, 3 against, Hirohito undecided).
The role played by the nukes is WILDLY exaggerated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nicholas Austin The root cause of what you are explaining (the current situation) is the result of a botched up peace process way back in 2003.
Toppling Hussein, without a proper plan for the subsequent peace, was a mistake. The USA and their allies thought it would simply be a matter of marching in, toppling Hussein, aaaand...viola...peace and democracy.
How wrong they were.
That was just extremely naive.
The root cause of the sh*thole that is now the ME is the failure to implement a proper peace plan once the hot phase of the war was over.
What you are doing with your comments, is the same as punching and kicking a down and out opponent, and then lying back with a grin on your face making fun of how he can get sh*t done. YOU punched him out, broke all his teeth, half blinded him, and put him in intensive care, and now you are making fun of him that he can't walk.
Is that the right thing to do?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
mijnkampvuur Seeloewe is a bit of a mystery.
It never had much support from the Army and Navy, the two branches which stood most to lose if it failed. Top Nazis (incl. Hitler) were mostly negative about the chances of success. I suppose a correct way to formulate their attitude would be saying 'lukewarm'.
At the LW, only Goering was all for it, and even most junior or mid-level officers were highly skeptical.
Of course, they were very confident on the tactical level, bearing in mind the previous successes they enjoyed in Poland and France, but as far as the entire plan was concerned, again a 'lukewarm'.
Almost unknown to many, is the fact that Raeder tried his very best to convince Hitler to go for the Suez Canal, rather than the English Channel, even before the BoB had really started (June 1940), and he had good reasons for that.
By late-September, the preparations were more in a way of exerting pressure on GB.
Hardly anybody on the German side still considered it a serious option.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheCeeeeeeeee ...buuuut, ...Germany was not not responsible for the start of WW1.
Germany declared war on Russia and France only, and was therefore responsible for starting a "continental European war" (based on previous, minor events of escalation).
It was the British, Commonwealth and countries like Japan, Italy and the Ottoman Empire which declared war voluntarily, without being threatened, and without being attacked, which "started" WW1 (or The Great War)
The Treaty of London ("Belgium"), was a pretext. It wasn't a defense treaty, which meant that other signatories of this treaty, like the Netherlands did not declare war on Germany, even though they had also vowed to ensure Belgian neutrality by signing the same treaty.
Why does one nation (GB) feel the need to "defend Belgium" because of a treaty, but another nation (the Netherlands) doesn't?
1
-
1
-
TheCeeeeeeeee That is also correct, but I fear you are confused about my motivation for posting.
My view is neutral, and not "filtered" by nationality, ideology or other factors.
Allow me to refer you to a link which pretty much sums up my POV about the "start of WW1" , Balkan Crises, etc.
Bear in mind, that I've reached my conclusions before I discovered this site, and that the information contained here reflects the conclusions I had already drawn before reading it. My opinion is based on facts, and not the opinions of others who have interpreted the facts ("objective" vs "subjective" argument)
http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/great-war-people/politics/politicians/3827-the-july-crisis-1914-what-went-wrong-19-steps-to-disaster.html
IMHO, western historians consistently make the mistake of linking events which have nothing to do with each other (or events which only became linked at some later stage), in their efforts to determine "guilt" or "innocence".
As far a I'm concerned, there was pretty little "innocence" and a whole lot of "guilt" on ALL sides.
Not only Germany "could have avoided WW1 from happening" (the latest consensus among historians in the controversial matter).
Every nation which later got involved, had the means to "avert WW1", by not getting involved in the Balkan Crises, or the subsequent events, in the first place.
1
-
TheCeeeeeeeee When I say that I'm neutral (one could also use the word "impartial"). I mean that I don't take sides.
I don't take sides, based on my nationality (which is actually South African, one of the Allied nations of the day), ideology (which I have none), etc.
True, a militant pro-British activist would come to a different conclusion than I do, but that is exactly my point. What "evidence" or "proof" would he use as a basis for his personal opinion?
A person's personal disposition depends on many factors (incl. religion, nationality, race, ideology, personal history, income, education, etc., etc., etc.)
Time plays a large role in the conclusions reached, as you have pointed out.
For a long time after WW1 was finished, historians had a hard time convincing Germans (for example), that "Germany started WW1". That remained intact until WW2, when many Germans fell to the mistaken logic that "OK, we started WW2, so we probably also started WW1".
The German historian Fisher played a large role here, and many Western historians breathed a sigh of relief. Suddenly, here was a "German" historian who took "our side".
To me, such "reasoning" is ridiculous.
Why should nationality play a role when looking at facts.
Can't we expect our historians to be impartial. and present us with the facts, instead of endless speculations and assumptions?
1
-
bossman Do you understand the concept of "ulterior motives"?
In other words, a person telling you one thing, but what he REALLY wants to achieve is something completely different....
Politicians do this all the time, and constantly fool the naive.
They promise 'jobs', but what they (and their elite corporate buddies) REALLY want is a big fat bank account on the Caymans, and a mega-yacht in the south of France.
Do you understand this?
In this elite world, there is also a lot of dog-eat-dog infighting. Everybody wants to be the 'top dog', and battles others who also want to be top dog.
Please confirm that you can follow this way the world is set up....
The so-called 'haves' aka 'the establishment' (USA), 'the elites' (western world) or 'the 300' in Russia, etc., etc.
They rule (and have always ruled) the world with the help of their stooges, crooks and cronies........and then there is us, the 'have-nots'....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dean West ....and how would the Soviet soldiers have invaded Japan?
For that, a country needs thousands of ships -- invasion barges, LCIs, LSTs, escort destroyers, battleships (shore bombardment, etc.), HQ ships, supply ships.
They had nothing, because it was a continental power.
You can't just say 'the SU would have invaded Japan', but then don't state (with some detail) how they would have carried out such landings....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Aeroldoth3 Teaming up and forming an alliance of various splinter groups could be an idea.
Of course it would take a strong personality to unite, and a strong willingness to compromise, in order to achieve this.
Sanders would have been a great figurehead for 'alternatives to the established system', but he entered the race too late.
Maybe next time.
I'm sure Hillary will win, probably piss off enough people in her '4 years of glory', and that would mean much greater chances for a real left alternative in 2020.
The time to start is now.
Discuss, make compromises, formulate proposals, find money, find a strong figurehead, go for 2020.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
canopeaz Well, if I had lived 1,000 or 5,000 years ago, I would have read my stone tablet news, and would have said 'oh, those nasty Arabs, throwing out those poor Jews...'
But....I don't live 1,000 or 5,000 years ago.
According to your 'logic', every single white has to leave North and South America, Australia, and New Zealand....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
bademoxy That is, unfortunately how it was...and how easy it was to fool the masses into entering the war...ahem...'for Belgium'.
Of course, 'Belgium' was a pretext.
There is always a bigger picture, and the biggest of the big pictures was the policy of the elites to keep the continent divided by a balance of power...
So, if it was in the interests of the elites to unite with France and Russia against Germany, to avoided German hegemony over the continent...then send off the boys....
If it came to avoiding Russian hegemony over the continent, then unite with France and Germany....whatever, who cares...
If it came to avoiding the French from dominating the continent, then unite with Germany, Spain...whatever....send off the boys to fight and die.
No worries, the backroom boys in the propaganda department will come up with a suitable story to incite "Jack the plumber"...
1
-
1
-
Mick C That is what you and Bishop are claiming (in other words, the "everybody wanted revenge"-argument), but that is not what the documentary (Death by Moonlight) states.
Therefore, I AM dealing with the feelings of "the people who were there".
According to Greyling, the Mass Observation unit's surveys clearly stated that the majority of people in Britain who had been bombed, did not want young British and Commonwealth lads to be sent to their deaths, SOLELY for the primitive urge of revenge.
The documentary "Death by Moolight" clearly states that many of the aircrew felt the same way (in the end, a pilot mentions that the moral doubts drove two out of his 7 crew members into post war alcoholism and drug abuse).
"Revenge" is a short lived, primitive urge, and counter productive on the long run.
Therefore, if a majority of the people who lived at the time (in other words, "those who were there") did not want young men to be sent to die a horrible death to take revenge, it is up to us to decide.
Mick, if you had lived back then and had been bombed in London or Coventry, would you have wanted a 20-year old airman to die, taking revenge for your pain?
If you said "yes", what kind of man would you be?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
random 1 Since when is the form of government a guideline to invade or declare war?
Saudi Arabia is an authoritarian dictatorship than oppresses its own people....and a great western buddy....
Your view that moral values should play a role in determining the reason de etre of entities is entirely correct...but it isn't...since our elites HAVE no moral values.
They mingle and make deals with the scum of this earth, or even empower, instate or support them if it serves their business interests....
What I've been doing with my example of Japan is to hold a mirror in your face, by using the same criteria you use to justify an act, and juxtaposing it with other similar historical events.
It exposes bias, same as I did in the previous posts with Shlomo.
No, I don't believe that Pearl Harbor was justified, because of the US meddling in the affairs of Vichy France and Japan.
Nor do I believe that the US meddling in Asia in support of a colonial power (France, oppressing and exploiting local peoples) was justified....
Nor do I believe than the invasion of Sues was justified.
Same thing.
Classical cases of two wrongs not making a right.
Sovereign states are sovereign states, and they call the shots....same as you would want me to accept for the acts carried out by the new state of Israel....
As far as the Suez Crises was concerned, luckily the 'Big Brother' USA saw it the same way I did, a called the naughty lap dogs (USA, France and to a lesser extent Israel) to heel...naughty, naughty boys :-)
And democracy is not the none plus ultra when determining the legitimacy of entities.
First and foremost comes self-determination, and moral values as set by philosophers. Ignore these, and your democracy becomes a hollow shell....a scam...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
random 1 You should stop brainwashing yourself that everybody wants to "destroy Israel".
We are still discussing the historical wrongs,so why are you constantly trying to shift the discussion to the current?
The wrongs were committed by the mass immigration of European migrants and refugees, swamping a region already inhabited by people.
If you can't admit that that was entirely wrong to start off with, then that's your prerogative.
In you wish to discuss the present, just bear in mind that world opinion is changing, and I'm urging the state of Israel to adapt to changing world opinion.
You are not going to get away with the same "schemes" (oozing your way octopus like onto other people's lands) you got away with 70 or 80 years ago. Today, the internet and 24-hour news will report on every atrocity and illegal activity real time and to massive number of people....not like 70 years ago, when it took weeks or even months to reach a limited number of politically interested people.
When the UN was formed, it consisted of Christian nations, and deeply religious leaders pulled the strings. Whites and Christians ruled the world (colonialism), and the overwhelming belief was that the Bible was the law, was the the norm, and not an exception....
Look at the world and recognize the shift in power and influence.
Other ideologies, religions, and atheists now 'share' the world, and are gaining more and more influence...
Christians and their views no longer 'rule the world'.
Colonialist thinking is over.
Recognize it and adapt.
Ignore it....and go under....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
random 1 Now you're getting confusing :-)
There wasn't a 'Jewish state' before 1948, only foreign immigrants (and post WW2) refugees. These foreigners had foreign passport, and were therefore citizens of the states they had left, or fled from.
The indigenous people were the ONLY original inhabitants (Jews, Arabs, Christians, Bedouins, etc. collectively called 'Palestinians').
These original inhabitants were already living living here when the foreigners arrived, and obviously not happy about being swamped by foreigners. Similar to Europeans today, moaning about refugees, and Americans carrying on about 'Mexican immigrants'.
It is entirely justified to fear becoming a minority in one's own lands, on which one has lived for generations, and have therefore got the customary right (note, a legal term) to.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com - Customary rights
The origins of the disputes you mentioned before 1948 (you wrote 'war') are therefore between the original inhabitants who have mostly always lived here, and new arrivals (immigrants and refugees), and are the result of indecent behaviour by the radical fringes of BOTH sides.
As for your final statement, that is exactly the point.
These people did not want to live in a country under the regime of foreign immigrants and refugees.
They were there before.
They lived here first.
1
-
random 1 You are merely drawing from a pool of criteria, to justify your own opinion.
Here is something for you to ponder....
If one allows people to decide their own destiny, and then has politicians to implement the resulting consensus, one gets 'self-determination'.
If one FIRST draws a line around people (border), and THEN lets them chose their destiny, one gets a mind trick often used by nationalists to justify their actions....sold as 'democracy'...
The easiest way to expose bias, is to ask oneself the 'in their shoes' question.
If you had been from 'the other side', a majority in the homelands you have always lived in, according to own traditions, and customs, overwhelmed by immigrants and refugees from a foreign culture....how would you have decided?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
random 1 Where did I claim that Israel was illegitimate?
That is entirely NOT my point. 'Israel', as a concept, has my full sympathy.
I fact, I have written this before.
I'm am questioning the validity (method) of HOW it was done. Nothing else.
For a discussion like this, one needs to understand the slight nuances of words. For example, the differences in what a statement like 'to recognise the right' ( as opposed to the common misconception that it means the same as 'to grant a state').
First off, the world (neither GB, nor the UN) did NOT 'grant' or more commonly understood as 'gave' the Jews ANY country, or special privileges.
I've read the thread again, and I realised that your comments are becoming more and more accurate, because you are actually using more precise words.
Maybe you can read again, and see what I mean.
The only thing the world recognized was a right to a Jewish state. Nothing about how to implement it.
It could ONLY make non-binding suggestions (Partitioning Plan).
Bear in mind that the State if Israel was called out by a minority of immigrants and refugees, on lands they were objectively (provable) a minority.
Even the 'bought the land' argument does not stand scrutiny.
So, that makes your comment on 'subjective reality' very valid.
In 1947, the sum of 'subjective opinions' expressed by the majority (non-Jews), outweighed the sum of 'subjective opinions' of the minority (Jews).
That principle is called self-determination, and is EXACTLY what the Arabs opposed and protested at that time.
There were more of them, and nobody listened to their grievances.
They were a majority, but they had little outside support.
As 'neutral organisation' (mostly colonialist, Christian countries) the UN suggestion was biased....guess who their suggestion favored? (56% of the remaining land, to 30% of the people)
You seem like a smart guy. I suggest you check out the term 'cognitive biases'. It is all about how we are mislead by our brain to consider irrational thinking as rational.
I suppose it is a 'put yourself in their shoes' situation.
So, as a Arab back then, you would have seen it as something like this:
... a few immigrants and refugees (even a few who associated with terrorists) called out the land of the Biblical Jews, without stating which land they were claiming, under the control of Judaism.
You know the declaration of independence.
How often does it contain the word Arab? (expressing Arab interests)
Apart from a minor mention in the small print, the declaration was entirely about very conservative Jewish leaders proclaiming how they were going to impose their way of doing things on others.
What did they expect in return?
1
-
1
-
random 1 OK, we are starting at the beginning again :-)
Lets try another approach...
Here is the standpoint of (many, not all) new, more liberal international community. These are people who voice a similar opinion to mine. I'm not claiming to speak for the rest of the world, but if you continually want to ignore valid opinions, then the citizens of Israel are partly to blame for the peace process not moving ahead....
In 1948, as these videos claim, "lawyers" did everything to assure that the declaration was legal. If one's definition of "legal" is so far removed from the definition of "moral", then simply expect opposition.
The ONLY thing that was "legal" about the founding of the state, was that it didn't break any laws.....think about that formulation.
But, that is not how the rest world works.
Many DON'T take sides anymore, but are neutral observers, like me. Most of the ruling elites of the world are not Christians anymore either, so that the Judeo-Christian traditional way of thinking is disappearing fast.
Put yourself into the mindset of others, if you guys want to find a solution.
Suffice to say, I've had hundreds of debates with my family in Israel over a dozen years, and it normally ends with a "...yeah, yeah, I understand...I know...let's have lunch..."
That's not how to go about solving a problem.
1
-
random 1 "Can you please explain to me why the foundation of israel wasn't moral?"
Just scroll up. I've made dozens of references to it.
If you don't grasp this yet, then you will never grasp it.
Do you think it is moral for immigrants and refugees to claim land based on what their holy book says?
"The public opinion doesn't effect my beliefs."
Majorities opinions don't matter?
Then you are bound to make mistakes again....
"And i have no idea what the Judeo-Christian traditional way of thinking is..."
The words of the Bible, as the source of a personal claim.
"...I personally try to avoid the attachment of certain views and beliefs to certain groups based on their ethnic origins,"
That is also my personal philosophy.
"...i personally think its idiotic to assume that just because people come from the same group they'll have the same opinion, i think this idea of "traditional beliefs" is racist."
That is entirely correct.
That is also why one-third of the UN decided AGAINST the partition plan in 1947, not every single Jew thought the declaration of independence was a good idea, why there was the long debate about the formulation "Rock of...", why some Arabs were not seriously opposed to the creation of Israel, etc., etc.
People are people....with own minds.
Ask a 100 people what they think (including me), and you will get 100 different opinions....
That is why we should NEVER underestimate the value of the term 'self-determination' of the people.
Ignore the people's right to chose, and there will eternally be serious problems in the world....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uri Ben meir Again, "land ownership" has nothing to do with "British rule".
It is therefore irrelevant how much land Jews and Jewish organisations bought.
The rest of the land was owned by Arab estate owners from big cities, or they were local smallholdings.
Again, one does not have to own land to be an inhabitant.
Millions of people around the world don't own land (tenets, renters, leasers, etc.). Hundreds of thousands of Jews who flooded into Palestine ALSO didn't buy land, especially the refugees after WW2, who were often penniless.
They settled on (became tenants, rented, or leased) lands bought by other Jews or Zionist organisations.
So what was the difference between an Arab tenant, living on land owned by a big land owner from Damascus, or a Jewish tenant, living on a Kibbutz?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jung Bolosse Under Israeli property law, private individuals cannot buy land.
Only around 7% of Israel is private land, the rest is state property leased back to citizens who...ahem..."qualify" by law....nuff said....
A large part of this 93% state property, was once confiscated under an "absentee ownership" law.
en.m.wikipedia.org - Israeli land and property laws - Wikipedia
The state merely took (and still takes) what it wanted, and therefore citizens like Uri need to feel no remorse about...cough, cough...."legally" leasing the land they live on. How convenient, for one's personal 'moral standards', if one isn't personally responsible...
This process, continues to today.
Even today, the state of Israel makes use of this law (once decided on by Jews) to steal land formally owned by 'Palestinians' (mostly non-Jews)....who once fled, or still flee, because living on their own land is made (or was made) unbearable.
You see...Uri doesn't grasp the difference between 'moral' and 'legal'....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Elr James People who criticize or even judge Chamberlain, often forget that contemporary witnesses did not generally posses the superhuman ability of clairvoyance :-)
The fact that 'there was a war anyway' in 1939, subconsciously influences their conclusions and opinions.
Other posts on videos like this, often express the opinion that 'if there had been a Churchill in power in 1936, we would never have had a WW2' (obviously, because 'a Churchill' would have wiped Germany off the map before the Nazis became too strong)
The insinuation is that it was 'weeny liberals' like Chamberlain who constantly appeased the fascist dictators, which led to Germany (but also Italy and Japan) gaining exactly that power which was later turned against the West. The conclusion generally reached (using the often frowned upon hindsight) is that 'if we had stepped in, in 1935 or 1936, and invaded Germany, none of this would have happened'.
Having 'a Churchill' in power, mostly plays a large role in these assertions, and certain amount of hero worship plays a role.
These assertions, are however, entirely contrary to the facts and evidence, and is therefore an assumption/conclusion based on the poster's personal mindset.
Here are the facts.
The conservative British politicians generally did not oppose fascism, as long as (and for the duration of time) it did not represent a direct threat to British interests.
Churchill himself, was largely indifferent to the fascist governments in Germany and Italy, until he swung around and recognized the danger they posed.
In order for Churchill to do an about turn, he would have needed to have had a more reserved standpoint before that point in time.
Evidence of Churchill's standpoint towards fascism, and one could even say a certain measure of support, is his reporting on the Spanish Civil War as a writer to conservative British newspapers.
At the early stages of the war, Churchill was completely in line with conservative British political opinion, in that he recognized a danger being posed by the (legal) Republican side (NOT by Franco). Since the Republican government was seen as 'communist' (leftist), the conservative British elite feared for the status quo concerning British interests (economic, trade, etc.) Churchill was therefore in line with conservative opinions at that time, which expressed a general support of Franco, and the forces which supported Franco.
Around the middle of the Spanish Civil War (around late 1937), Churchill began changing his mind, and now expressed a more neutral point of view.
He was still not firmly against the German and Italian intervention.
It wasn't until the the final stages of the war, by which time there had also been general swing in public opinion in GB, that Churchill finally changed his mind, and was firmly against the fascist intervention. Again, this had nothing to do with any concern for the Spanish population, but rather a concern about British interests.
Therefore, a statement like 'we should have invaded Germany in 1935 or 1936', makes absolutely no sense at all. One would have to admit that even Churchill recognized the danger posed by fascism far too late, since by late-1936, Germany and Italy were allies (the Axis Rome-Berlin), and any invasion of Germany would have meant a wider European war, the results of which would have been even more catastrophic than WW1.
So, Churchill only changed his mind about the danger posed by fascism, and Hitler in the course of late-1937/early-1938.
My personal conclusion?
Maybe Churchill should have read Mein Kampf...
Sorry to keep you occupied with my ramblings, but as always I got carried away again :-)
1
-
Elr James Concerning promises made during WW1 -- these promises made in order to gain allies during WW1, certainly came back to haunt the victors when the war finished.
There were so many promises, and 'dirty little secret deals', many of these conflicting, that somebody was bound to come up short.
Italy and Japan are good examples of failed politics.
Many seem to forget that both were WW1 Allies, and could have stayed so after the war if the right policies had been followed.
Thanks for pointing out Hughes. I vaguely remember that episode, and also the role played by the Washington Naval treaty (I'll have to brush up on my reading again).
Needless to say, after already being treated like little schoolboys at Versailles, some Japanese diplomats and politicians were probably beginning to wonder about the advantages of remaining pro-Westerners.
I guess, just like in Germany, the 1930s World Depression gave every remaining liberal movement the coup de grace...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
RonJohn63 As for my 'confusing point' — it is only confusing if one still follows the post-1960s revisionist narrative (from a 1960s standpoint) of "Germany started it".
Before that, most historians actually concluded that the war was pretty much everybody's fault, since one should examine the various events according to the criteria "free choice".
So, when Fisher arrived with his theory that the 1912 meeting was actually a "roadmap" for war, historians breathed a sigh of relief.
en.m.wikipedia.org - German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912 - Wikipedia
Great, another war that could be blamed squarely on the Germans.
In the meantime, we are back to most historians actually reaching a consensus that WW1, was basically everybody's fault...
Or at least 'No one country deserves all the blame...'
If no country deserves all the blame, they why should placing a pistol on their representatives' chests be considered a noble deed?
I admire the US representatives of the people, who refused to ratify it.
It was correct not to sign it, and conclude a separate peace treaty.
As for the rest..
Correct. A wise analyses.
Just bear in mind that re-arming is always a double-edged sword. Ordering masses of equipment, and having the best and they greatest army one year, would naturally result in massive numbers of equipment also becoming outdated a year or two later....
Ask Stalin.
He found out in 1941 that 'big' and 'effective' were 2 entirely different concepts...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Foo Bar So, what you are saying in end effect is that "Churchill the appeaser" should not have appeased one of history's worst mass-murderers, Josef Stalin, by signing away around a hundred million people in eastern Europe to the yoke of communist oppression in 1944.
"Churchill the appeaser", thought that appeasing Stalin was perfectly OK, so millions of people were "sold" (some of whom, like Poles and Czechs, had fought side by side with the Allies to liberate Europe from oppression).
What you are saying is that we should have taken on Stalin, and avoided the Cold War, millions of deaths from the subsequent wars of proxy, and trillions of defense dollars and pounds?
Hmmm...interesting theory.
As far as Chamberlain is concerned.
Chamberlain "sold" 3 million German speakers (who had had an intense desire to join Germany since 1919, and according to the "democratic logic", should have been a part of Germany since 1919) to Germany, and in the meantime prepared for a war which he hoped would be unnecessary.
All the initial British successes (Battle of Britain, the convoy system, Chain Home radar and air defense, the Spitfire, "Hunt" class escort destroyers, etc., etc.), were the direct result of steps undertaken by the Chamberlain government. You should show some respect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
canicheenrage 'Seizing' an area is perfectly OK, as long as a majority of the people are for it (or at least neutral, in other words couldn't care either way).
If taking people, dividing them up, or annexing lands leads to discontent, it is obviously wrong.
Why would anybody advocate measures of short-term gain (aka 'land-grabbing'), if such measures lead to long-term instability? (widespread hate, civil unrest, and potential for war)
As long as the people who live on the lands don't object, who the f*ck cares what the 'establishment' or the 'elites', think?
1
-
1
-
1
-
+trauko1388 " LOL, keep trying those funny deflections,..."
I'm addressing your ignorance concerning geopolitics.
Of course, to the feeble minded, everything HAS to be 'a conspiracy theory', and everybody always 'makes evil plans'.
Geopolitics is NOT ABOUT WAR.
" I would love to hear about how "that absurd "land bridge" played into Germany's "long term strategy", which, in itself, would be a great find since Germany pretty much lacked one thanks to Willy's constant wavering..."
Yes, access to the oil of the Middle East would be nice, thank you very much.....oh, you Brits and Americans ALSO want it? Let's see who has got the stronger will...or as popular history goes ' ze stronker vill to rool ze virld'... LMFAO
"Oh! A nice reward when wars were won? SO when did Germany planned this war exactly? XD"
Uhm...no.
You are confusing 'geopolitics' and 'conspiracy theory'. The theme of popular historians.....
Geopolitics is NOT ABOUT WAR. Did I mention that before somewhere?
"And please, do tell me more about Germany's motivations for war! That should be hilarious! XD"
Please define 'war'.
Yes, Trauko, you always have to clearly define, or patiently explain, exactly what you are talking about to avoid arguments :-)
Motivations for what 'war'?
Oh, you mean motivations for a 'QUICK LITTLE WAR' in the Balkans, with their ally AH crushing Serbia, and Russia forced to fume on the sidelines (like 1908), because France backed down?
Easy.
A LAND BRIDGE TO THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, SECURE SOURCE OF OIL, SECURE WATERWAYS, EXPANDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, RAILWAY CONNECTIONS TO OIL, BLOCKADE FREE ECONOMIC ZONE, IN SOME FARAWAY FUTURE ..uhm...did I mention oil?
Stupid, stupid oaf.
You can't think from here to tomorrow....
"No man, I am not the one putting forward conspiracy theories about "land bridges" to nowhere"
BINGO.
There we have it.
Everything HAS to be a conspiracy theory....
"..., I rather deal with facts and reality,..."
NO.
You are dealing with the popular version of history, promoted by the popular book writing 'his-storians' (narrative history), and public funded BBC doc making bias-storians.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_history
That's the version of history which is like a story.
You don't have to think too much.
You can cook up a recipe one moment, be informed about how Hitler came to power a few minutes later, and then still have enough time to find out who won X-Factor....
"... granted, sometimes I cant avoid mocking utterly ridiculous theories when they enter the realm of the mad hatter... ;)"
Nope.
What you are TRYING to do is to mock from a position of inferior knowledge.
That means, in your own eyes, and in the mind of others with equally inferior knowledge, you are a 'hero'.
To people with superior knowledge of a subject, you are just a fool.
aka Dunning-Kruger effect.
Here's a hint.
Study what the Dunning-Kruger theory is.
If not, next time I'll give you the populist version by John Cleese :-)
1
-
1
-
trauko1388 'This is rather pointless.
Casus Belli is a POV. It is not a legal term.You can even instigate a false flag, and then loudly scream CASUS BELLI.
Uhm...so what?
It doesn't PROVE that the other side is GUILTY of anything. You seem to think that it proves that Serbia is guilty? Bullshit.
It is still only the own standpoint.
So, yes. The assassination was still a pretext, because the plans to invade Serbia existed looong before that (google Hoetzendorf)
You even admit so yourself.
If you WANT to invade, you don't NEED to scream Casus Belli. That then becomes a subterfuge.
Who the fuck cares if the AH leaders shout Cassus Belli?
"The Serbians were regarded as trash back then, basic savages worthy of contempt..."
Mind providing me with a few links to actually PROVE what you say?
Says who?
I mean, the Germans, or the Turks? Who?
Brits? Americans?
Honestly, we are talking about times when Turks murdered millions of Armenians, Germans likewise in SWA (100,000), and the Brits perfected concentration camps starving 25,000 women and kids to death, and the Americans were doing the same in the Philippines
Who the fuck was doing the judging?..
"You mention Belgium, I just set you straight.
LOL!!!! Are you serious? Are you really this retarded? Oh, of course you are! You are bridge boy! XD
The "invasion" of Belgium was a "coup de main", Moltke's attempt to take Liege with pre-positioned troops before the Belgians mobilized and fully manned the defenses... which they had already done.."
Nice try.
I prefer asking a Belgian farmer how he felt having his farmhouse shot to pieces by the friendly neighbor on a peaceful picnick hike..
Neutral is neutral.
Get it?
Neutral, get it?
Not 'a little bit neutral' or 'I know you're neutral but I'm just walking through', 'Don't mind me, I'm on my way to kill some frogs'.
NO.
Neutral.
BTW, so was the Netherlands, and Germany didn't invade the Netherlands because they dared man their forts.
Seriously, and I'm retarded?
You should look up the word 'apologia', now that you are already overtaxing your brain with trying to figure out what 'casus belli' means...
But that's OK.
You'd make a world class apologist for wwar crimes....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** That would be the difference between "individual choice" and the decision of an entity like a state.
Many Australian also came from other areas of the world. As far as I know, all Australian soldiers were volunteers, so that makes it a "probably OK" for me.
I say "probably OK", because in certain situations, patriotism can also be misused by propaganda (for example the disinformation of German soldiers bayoneting babies, and other exaggerations).
Unlike Australia and New Zealand (where the decision unified most people), it was different in SA. Here, the decision by the government was not also the individual choice of many citizen's, which led to strife. From the POV of the average SA citizen at the time, it led to violence and division, instead of unity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chris Nata As you say, maybe...
Although I agree with your point about terror regimes (in general, not only nazi Germany) having to be stopped, I can't follow the "at all cost"-part.
This isn't because I'm naive about the world we live in (and my ancestors lived in, in the past). It is simply a matter of logic, or reverse-logic, whatever you wish to call it.
Surely, if you add an "at all costs" phrase, your enemies will have the justification to do the same. Therefore, to quote a modern day example, the 9/11 attacks could be "justified" by terrorists using exactly the same argument as you did. That is, that all the innocent civilians working in the towers were working in the US (the country of their enemies), generating tax money, which would be used to fight them (the terrorists). From a terrorist POV, the attacks were justified.
IMHO, there is only right or wrong, and if you claim to fight for the side of the righteous, you have to stick to the rules. Even if your enemy doesn't. Putting yourself at a disadvantage to claim moral superiority is a virtue, especially if there is little chance of losing. Using the same evil tactics as your opponent, if there is NO immediate and urgent necessity, creates a moral dilemma.
The get back to WW2, ALL bombings, killings and involvement of civilians on both sides, and in any form, was wrong, irrelevant of "who started it"..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thanks again!
I've discovered from previous posts that, in general, most comments come from extreme "for" or "against" views, often based on outdated facts, conclusions, and personal POV's (based on books).
A POV from an unbiased moderate is rare indeed!
By rivals I meant everybody and anything who could use Hitler's dispicable policy (based on racism) as a basis for propaganda against the German population in general. I'm sure that most Germans did not support Hitler. Many merely "went along", because he was "better" than the weak democracy of the twenties.
Churchill, to me, was basically the right person for GB for the bad results achieved by others, arising from a failure of politics over the past twenty years (1919-1939).
He was neither "good" nor "bad", and democracy took care of hm when the war finished. The people (always the basis of ALL of my POV's) realized that the time for his views had passed.
Look forward to your view!
1
-
Elr James I know what you mean.
I admire politicians who can impliment today, what you are explaining. I distinctly remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction hoax, which was used to coax populations of the "falcon"-nations to line up behind their governments.
II admired French and German leaders who did not follow the lead, and fought against it. I remember how I cringed when I heard the (now proven) hoax, and patted my own back for "seeing through" it.
Then again, how would I have reacted if WMD had been found? Along with plans for the domination of the Middle East?
I tough one.
You might find my channel pretty dormant and boring :-)
I'll subscribe to yours, since (I reluctantly admit) I'm not a big expert on the "software" of history (dates, personalities, politics, etc.), but rather the "hardware" (statistics, weapons, etc.)
1
-
1
-
Nyctasia Yes, that is correct.
What is also correct, is that the USA's actions (or inaction) resulted in citizens of the Central Powers dying.
Also, Wilson turning a blind eye to GB's policy of the long distant blockade (instead of the coastal blockade sanctioned by the Hague Convention), resulted in grave implications to more than 30,000,000 neutral citizens in the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark, who by 1918 were suffering health problems due to the RN's unjustified and hard-handed activities.
The USA should, and could have remained completely neutral, and also not chosen sides, as was the wish of almost all US citizens. As always, it was big business ('follow the money') which dragged America into a war not desired by its population...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** There was a relatively long period of peace, for more than 400 years to be exact (Ottoman Empire) when there was peace and stability.
Jews also thrived in secular Muslim states, like in Iran under Shah Rezah.
All of that changed when the state of Israel was called out by a minority of European immigrants (around 30% of the population), without the consent of, and without consultation with the Arab majority or the League of Nations (which only granted GB the authority to undertake steps for 'a Jewish homeland' in 1924).
A separate state was never foreseen under the original plan.
Violence stemmed from fractional minorities on both sides, against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of good people (on both sides) who just wanted to live in peace.
So, there was instigation of violence, and terrorism on both sides, and the overwhelming majority of innocents (again, both sides) suffered the consequences.
Calling out the state of Israel, without consulting neighboring states or even local inhabitants, was a selfish move too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Matthew McVeagh That entirely not my point.
The mistakes were made in 1919.
In 1938 Chamberlain therefore merely aimed to avoid a war over something which should have been avoided from the outset (in a 1919 plebiscite, for example)..
The area that was once the Austrian part of the Austria-Hungarian Empire was simply carved up after the end of WW1, and the wishes of the people living there were not respected.
Had the wishes of the people (as expressed, and forbidden in 1919) been heeded, there would have been no cause for grief, and no Sudeten Crises.
Your parallel to GB isn't valid, since GB was one of those nations which created the artificial state of Czechoslovakia in the first place. Lines were drawn on maps, and subsequently ticked off by the League of Nations - the people were never asked what they wanted. Czechoslovakia never "created" a GB by randomly forcing together people with different languages and ethnicity into new state, with the objective of alliances against a third power (in 1919 GB and France created Czechoslovakia as an ally against Germany, as a substitute for Russia, which had collapsed during WW1)
Had there been a friendly resolve of the land issues in 1919, Germany and Czechoslovakia would have had friendlier relations, without the need for border defense fortifications, just like today.
1
-
Matthew McVeagh The question in your first paragraph is easily answered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudeten_Germans
Scroll down to the chapter "In the wake of the First World War".
Secondly, the Germans were concentrated in the border regions, and were not a patchwork. Therefore, if the political will had been there, could have easily been allowed to join Austria or Germany. The same is true for the 700,000 Hungarians, lobbed off from their motherland. Also around 250,000 Ukranians, cut from the SU (Karpatho-Ukrainians).
Here are the figures.
Czechs 7,5 million
Germans 3,5 million
Slovaks 2,3 million
Ukrainians 0,25 million
There were also Poles, and various other smaller minorities.
When you wrote "It's not about how countries come about, it's about how one country high-handedly treats another by bargaining its territory away without even consulting it, irrespective of how the two have come about."
The exact same comment could also apply to the Sudeten Germans after WW1, when they were simply "high-handedly bargained away" without consulting them.
Honestly, Matthew, if you had been a German living in the Sudetenland, with a deep seated wish to join people with the same culture and language, how would you feel?
1
-
Matthew McVeagh From 1919 on wards, Germany was a democracy. There were no "bellicose leaders".
Bellicose leaders are extremely rare in times of stability, economic prosperity, or without outside cause for duress (wars, crises, etc.).
After WW1, Germany, under it's mainly socialist governments was not warmongering in any way.
I think you statement reflects the typical opinion that Germans always wanted to conquer everything left and right. Also not true. The German declarations of war in 1914 were a response to other countries actions (Russia mobilized) or contingency plans (Belgium). There was no plan to "rule the world" as often stated in cheap docs. Serious historians never state cheap lines like that.
Before WW1, Germany was the only major power which did not invade, declare war, or threaten other sovereign states. Apart from a single war in a colony, it was much more peaceful than any other major power.
Furthermore, why should nations who live in good relations need armies and forts? Nothing protects a border better than mutual respect and borders open to trade. Czechs and Germans had no fundamental differences, and they lived together peacefully while it was united under Austria for 100 years. It was Czech nationalists, living in Paris during WW1, who fanned the flames of hatred. As foreseen in Wilson's 14 points, the people should have been given the choice. If you have true and honest democratic values, you will see the value of letting the people choose, instead of imposing on them.
It was the Germans who were treated with disrespect after WW1 was over. That backfired, and the politicians responsible for the farce of Versailles, poked and humiliated the second most powerful economy in the world, without considering future consequences.
1
-
1
-
Nyctasia I don't think so.
Hastings, for one, likes to conjure images of "the nasty German" who just "had to be stopped" by referring to the Herrero War in Namibia as "evidence" of how "nasty" Germans were, and "...what would have happened to us if we didn't stop them..."..
In other words, these historians wish to claim that Germans are inherently more cruel, and only the "good" British, French and USA could stop them.
IMO, ANY reference to atrocities and crimes against humanity should always be put in context, by admitting that one's own soldiers and warmongers were no better. Sometimes even worse.
There is ample evidence that if the conditions are the same, so are the crimes. German atrocities in Belgium therefore have a DIRECT line to Mai Lei in Vietnam, because in BOTH cases tired, fearful and frustrated soldiers reacted due to a perception of danger, and the result was the same = dead civilians.
Subsequently military or political leaders were either trying to cover it up, lying or pardoning those who committed the crime.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At 1:18:00 mins
"...disagree that hindsight should be a major guide...put yourself in their shoes...think the way that they did..."
What? Should we also "put ourselves in shoes" of Allied commanders in May 1940? Should I put myself in their shoes, use their perspective, and therefore excuse their actions of digging in, staying on the defensive, locking themselves into their Maginot Line, etc.
Strangely enough, when historians (the book writing and doc making variety) want to underline a conclusion or opinion, they gladly use hindsight (in other words, they DON'T put themselves in the shoes of those who lived at the time).
They overwhelmingly condemn Allied commanders for their decisions.
Historians overwhelming use post May-1940 hindsight to condemn these commanders by saying "How stupid they were. It should have been clear that Blitzkrieg was superior..."
But, when it comes to something which contradicts a popular misconception, it's suddenly "oh, no, no, no,...that is hindsight. The people who lived at the time couldn't have known..."
What now?
Hindsight, or no hindsight?
Clearly, our beloved historians can't have it both ways.....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
tedbert Yes, of course, dear.
And if you look at 'an officer' the wrong way, they'll just follow you around for a while, until you make a tiny mistake.
Maybe, you forget to indicate the required 100 feet before an intersection, before you turn off.
Then, they've got you by the balls.
In the perfect place, perfectly legal, to start giving you 'lawful orders'. Of course, the type of 'lawful order' will depend on how they feel, whether they like, or don't like what you look like, or what you're dressed like.
All, perfectly legal.
Some people might get a 'lawful order', others might not.
Just depends on how paranoid they feel that day.
Perfectly OK.
They know they have a sympathetic crowd of indifferent and complacent fans which will excuse almost everything they do...
http://www.businessinsider.com/cleveland-police-officer-who-shot-a-12-year-old-boy-he-gave-me-no-choice-2015-6?IR=T
Don't pretend you don't know that if they want to, they can 'pull rank' on you.
1
-
tedbert Your position is typical of 'the apologist'.
How do you even know the position of the cops was right? By watching a video? Were you there?
Everybody who criticizes this event, and MANY other events similar to this, are addressing a wider issue. It is an issue to which you are blind, or which you can safely ignore because it does not affect you.
I can only assume that, typical for the apologist, you are in an elevated position of comfort, looking down.
There is a wider issue here, it doesn't affect you, you make (bad) excuses for it. You prefer to ignore the wider issue, by focussing on tiny tiny tiny details (...legal orders).
Your police force knows no other method than escalation.
In their mindset, a crowd of people is a mob = trouble.
Not a single effort of de-escalation.
The 'sergeant-major'- attitude ordering 'the troops' around, takes over.
Follow orders?
Who do you think you are fooling?
1
-
1
-
tedbert I don't hate the police.
See?
There we have it.
Now, according to your own principles of 'jumping to conclusions', I can accuse you of being a right-wing apologist for excessive police use of force.
Where is that going to lead to?
In fact, I clearly state that most cops are doing a great job.
THEY are the ones who should take care of the rotten eggs in their own lines, and to remove them.
THEY are the ones who are complacent, and blame others when the general public loses respect for the police force.
THEY should be the ones saying 'wait a minute, something went wrong here', and address the situation.
If not, it will be the age old arrogance of power.
I think something all people can agree on is that a person, ANY person, has to earn respect. A uniform is not a guarantee for instant respect -- the bearer must always FIRST earn it through his/her actions. Respect cannot be enforced.
When certain elements of the police force feel that they have a special privilege to enforce respect, when none is forthcoming, they might have to start some soul searching as to why this is so.
But, of course, that is not the mindset of the right-winger.
It's ALWAYS somebody else's fault...
And BTW, I'm not only talking about this case.
I haven't only talked about this specific case right from the first comment I placed.
I'm addressing a wider issue.
Ignore it, and you might one day be at the receiving end of your own complacency....
1
-
1
-
1
-
tedbert My original comment was to the OP, Bopeepout. In his original comment, he makes the assertion that reads like this: ' just do what you are told'.
I answered that with a comment about whether a citizen should ALWAYS simply do as told. I underlined that with a link to an article in which the interested reader may inform him/herself about a cop who ordered a kid to clean his car.
With that, I set the criteria for a discussion, which includes ALL cases, not just this one.
If you are not happy with the criteria I set, then just ignore my comments.
If you wish to create your own criteria, then you can also create your own post, to which people may, or may not respond.
What is there about this simple principle that you don't understand?
I don't want to discuss only this case, but the wider issue of the misuse of power, the arrogance of power, undue force, the emphasis on escalation, rather than de-escalating situations.
Some cops have this natural ability to turn a simple traffic violation into a deadly event.....
If that is outside your comfort zone to discuss, then just don't respond, and I'll wait for somebody else to respond.
Everybody has to stick to the law?
What will happen to me if I see a kid in a park playing with 'a gun' and I simply pull up next to him and shoot him 2 seconds after I arrive, without even looking twice?
Bang. Dead. Shoot first, ask questions later....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Naval experts won't argue the fact that German ships were essentially short-ranged North and Baltic Sea ships.
The German High Seas Fleet was therefore essentially a risk fleet.
A "risk fleet" doesn't have to be bigger than a rival (in this case the HSF vs.the RN).
It also doesn't have to operate world-wide (which is the reason Germany never had naval bases matching the military and industrial capacity of Singapur, Bombay, Malta, Gibraltar, Sydney, Aden, Alexandria, Hong Kong, and dozens of others)
The scope, expanse and capabilities of British overseas bases (for example docks, repair facilities, re-supply, etc.) largely exceeded anything the German Empire had abroad.
The only German bases capable of handling, repairing and replenishing a large number of ships were the German Navy's Naval Yards at Kiel, Wilhelmshafen and Danzig.
My conclusion.
A risk fleet doesn't have to operate world-wide.
The pre-war naval arms race, and the subjective feeling that the German ships were a threat, was (partly) a British propaganda tool, aimed at raising awareness to a potential threat to GB. The aim was to gain the support and funds (as always in democracies) to counter the the German expansion by building MORE ships in every category in which the Germans chose to challenge GB's superiority in numbers.
The "world wide threat" to GB was made up.
How could Germany achieve in a few years, what took GB 300 years to achieve? (in other words, create the world-wide bases needed to successfully operate the large number of ships needed to pose a threat to GB)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** OK, thanks for clarifying.
In fact, I somewhat agree with your points A to C, because it makes sense from a neutral position.
Just to sus out your position....
In other words, seeing that you are a neutral observer, and a fan of preemptively striking down potential danger, you would probably historically take the side of Austria-Hungary and Germany in WW1, seeing that Serbia sponsored...hint, hint....'international terrorism' ('The Black Hand'), and that France supported Russia in their strive for the Dardanelles and to attack Berlin (Russian offensive Plan 19 aka "the steamroller").
Of course, you'd be completely in line with the British point of view, who did NOT declare war on Germany based on their...ahem...'alliance' to Russia and France (Entente).
Of course, the British leadership knew for a fact that the Russian and French (with their Plan XVII to invade Germany) were the REAL engineers of the continental European war which started with a (note) Austria-Hungarian declaration of war on a rogue state supporting international terrorism in 1914.
Serbia, of course, was NOT allied to to either Russia or France, making any Russian or French move purely voluntary....
Of course, SMART people ask themselves why GB didn't declare war on Germany and A-H the MINUTE Germany declared war on Russia and France (based on the fact that they were....cough, cough...'allies')....hmmmm.
Good, that you can see beyond the smoke...and see the fire...
1
-
***** Not 'Monday morning quarterbacking' :-)
You are actually explaining how the world works, because of human nature.
Of course, we are all either victims or perpetrators in the age old game of 'spin doctoring' or 'propaganda'. The more autocratic the state, the more 'propaganda' with agendas in mind, and the more liberal and free, the more 'spin doctoring' with ulterior motives in mind.
In term of WW1, I agree completely.
If I had lived back then, I would have jumped on my little boat and sailed to some remote island, waiting for the stupidity to balance itself out :-)
That is of course, if I had managed to see through the smoke of lies and deceit on all sides.
Of course, I wrote my comment on WW1 with lots of 'ahems' and 'cough, coughs', because these...lol...'entirely legitimate reasons' in 1914, were of course only pretexts to lure 'Jack, Joe, Giovanni, Igor, Fritz, and Sergei' the 'plumbers' out of the bar, and onto the battlefields...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
After the Hamburg attack, Allied commanders remained committed to their sharply divergent strategies...and that, in end effect, led to a diversification of the Allied strategic warfare effort.
Instead of focusing and eliminating one key sector of the German war effort at a time, the forces available were wasted on many separate points of attack, blunting their impact.
Speer even sharply criticized this.
He mentioned how the limited forces used in some bombing attacks, led to damage which could be (mostly, not always) relatively quickly repaired. After such repairs, which aided productivity, the plants production was often higher than before the raid. This effectively cancelled out any lost production achieved by the raid.
Furthermore, Speer criticized the long duration between attacking the same targets, meaning that production levels were retained or even increased.
Speer is often quoted for saying things which seem to support the Allied bombing campaign, but he is never quoted when he said something critical.
How come??
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Regarding WW2 and the SU on the Eastern Front...
"1) had more humanity to throw away and more willingness to waste human life" = same, ditto, Ho thought the same...
"2) they were winning battles" = the north didn't care, because they fought a different type of war, with a different focus (final outcome)
"3) they were taking ground" = the north didn't care, because they were fighting a different type of war, with a different objective
"4) they took all of the ground en route to the Berlin" = the north didn't care, because they were fighting a different type of war with a different focus
"5) that is still about 1/2 of the whomping that US put on the NVA" = the north didn't care, because they were fighting a different type of war, with a different objective and focus
"6) compelled the German government to submit (that treaty thing that you don't understand)" = the north didn't care, because they were fighting type of war, with a different objective and focus
You didn't think that post through very well, did you?
You seemed to miss a lot.
You either did not see it or you were trying to be deceptive, so which was it?
Were you ignorant or deceptive?
1
-
1
-
King Baldwin IV Buddy, have YOU got your history screwed up. I don't even know where to begin....
1) Whoever said that the communists were not terrible people?
I said (all along) that the north ACHIEVED their initial OBJECTIVE.
The USA didn't.
That is the point.
As a general rule, the point of politics is to achieve an objective, and politicians USE the military to achieve that if diplomacy fails.
The military is there as an extended arm of politicians. NOT the other way around...
If politicians fail to achieve their objective, and the military can't enforce/dictate/achieve a stated objective (keep communist out of South Vietnam), then you've lost.
2, 3, 4) No they didn't. In 1975, their flag was flying over Saigon.
OWN objective achieved.
One side wins if they can stop another side from achieving its objectives.
You see, Ho didn't give a shit about your objective (and the excuses you make for not achieving it), because he had his own and he actually achieved it....
Some of your other points....
"They did get the term that they stated. Kissinger wanted to initiate the peace sooner but Nixon thought that the Communists needed some additional instruction."
Nope, he wanted a 'face saving' way out, so these sorry-ass US leaders murdered a few hundred thousand more Vietnamese military and civilians, and own soldiers, and wasted a few billion dollars more...
That objective (face saving way out) was achieved.
"The Communists left for 3 years because they HAD to. They knew that they could not confront Nixon, he ate their lunch."
They regrouped, and kept on planning to achieve their stated objective....one nation...
"They saw their opportunity with a defeatist, sympathizer Democrat party in charge of the House...blah, blah..."
Who the fuck cares.
It is still the USA. It's one nation, not "military", "Democrats", "us", "them", blah, blah....excuses, excuses, obfuscating, finger-pointing....
"The enforcement of the peace was the job of the Legislative Branch, who failed."
See above....
"Similar to the transition from WWI to WWII, Britain, France, etc. failed to enforce Versailles, so they fought ANOTHER WAR."
Nope.
The allies clearly won that war, and dictated a stupid one-sided peace treaty.
The stated goals of the sides fighting during WW1 and WW2 were COMPLETELY different.
Different war. Different objectives.
"Just like after WWI, Poland fought the Soviet invasion of Europe in 1920. It waas not the same war, even though it occurred even sooner after the peace treaty."
See above. Different war DIFFERENT objectives.
LOL, buddy....starting your timeline when it's convenient for your argument again?
Did you forget that after WW1 that the military dictatorship in Poland was the aggressive expansionist regime attacking neighbors?
Did you conveniently forget Polish aggressive expansion into a neighboring state (the Ukraine) in 1918, triggering a Soviet response?
Who invaded who?
Yup.
Not for the first time in history...trampling over the right of self-determination of nations had long term effects...
Look up causality, or as 'Joe the plumber' would say...."Karma is a bitch", "get what you deserve", or...my personal favorite for all those...ahem...'good Christians' out there: "reap what you sow..."
1
-
gameaddict836 Your grandfather didn't adhere to the spirit of the Constitution.
The end effect of your nations leaders not honoring the wisdom of the Constitution, and the values proclaimed here, and granting the same basic human rights to others, simply came back to haunt your own nation.
See the above apologia of...note the 'nobility'-, upper class 'establishment'- attitude of apply named King Baldwin, who obviously thinks Poles had the right to rule over Lithuanians, Ukrainians, White Russians, and others....just like the kings ruled in the good ol' days of the Middle Ages....
Of course, those Poles dreaming of the...ahem...'Lebensraum' of the Greater Polish Empire of the 17th century, and who invade other nations, are heroes.
Go figure....
Constitution states clearly.
Power, liberty, equality, justice and property...
Liberty and self-determination as the highest ideals.
Do you honor the Constitution?
1
-
"My grandfather held the Constitution in the same light as he held the Bible."
He couldn't have.
He valued the Constitution, and the justice and values proclaimed here FOR HIMSELF.
As for moral values, he should have read the Bible more carefully, so that when his immoral leaders called him up to fight against the wishes of another nation for INDEPENDENCE after 400 years of colonialism...he should have recognized the injustice (BOTH 'constitutional' AND 'Christian'), and joined the resistance.
"Have you served?"
Yes I have. As an officer, and I would have refused an immoral order, and I would have refused to fight in a war in which my own country was on the wrong side of history.
The ONLY just war, is if one is attacked, or an ally with EQUAL ethical standards, is attacked...without undue provocation.
NOTHING else.
I'm not a puppet, I am a patriot.
" It's disgusting. When he got off his flight back in the states, people were spitting on him, calling him a monster. It's really easy to take moral high ground when you have no fucking clue what these men went through. So go on; keep telling people how horrible we are."
I agree.
Those demonstrators were pathetic and should have directed their anger at the source.
The pathetic US leaders, who did not value the wisdom of the Constitution, when Vietnamese leaders approached them at the end of WW2, with a plea for support for independence after 400 years of French rule.
Your leaders said...'tough shit, back to Colonial rule for you, and exploitation, greedy French bureaucrats, injustice, theft of raw materials....deal with it...'
Sometimes shit thrown at a fan comes right back at ya...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
7+King Baldwin IV
That isn't a 'correlation'. Using a story to explain history, is called an 'analogy'.
I made some alterations, to make your analogy more in line with the facts...
"It was as if a drug-dealing lady was being harassed and attacked by a bunch of guys when the security arrived.
A corrupt security, running a private extortion racket on the side, killed most of the guys that tried to attack the lady, by spraying the entire street with bullets....killing hundreds of women and kids. The remaining thieves, in order to not be killed, sign a restraining order and leave. As security goes back to the office and the lady tries to live her life.
2 years later, the guys break the restraining order and start harassing her. The drug-dealing lady, who now also runs a prostitution ring, contacts security and reports the breach of the restraining order, fending them off with her carry pistol. Security, now under different management, refuses to help her or enforce the order. The...cough, cough...'lady' defends herself until she runs out of ammo...."
Not a bad analogy.
Your analogy clearly explains why the 'security company' failed.
I actually agree.
The 'bad guys' won :-)
(BTW, that is called 'two wrongs don't make a right')
"After that, she is taken, raped, enslaved, and told that she deserved it by Ralph Bernhard."
Incorrect.
Nobody on this thread except you (Agent Orange, killing 2.5 million Vietnamese civilians), is making excuses for any wrongful action.
There happens to be a difference between 'explaining something' (in other words HOW and WHY events unfold the way they do), and 'apologia' (aka 'bad excuses').
Your method of debating is quite clear.
Throw an allegation out there, forcing the opposite to deny it. If not, you can call your opposite a 'commie sympathizer'. LOL. People are not stupid King...ahem 'Baldwin'.
"Yes, I would have resumed hostilities. The RVN would have performed ground operations provided with ammunition by the US. The US would have bombed Hanoi, military targets, and removed North Vietnam's ability to conduct war."
That is why you are a fool.
"It is called keeping your honor."
You don't have a clue about honor.
Fighting for a corrupt regime is not honorable.
"The Republic of Vietnam was an independent nation, just ask all of the State Department officials that were irritated with the independence of No Dinh Diem. . . wait, you never read that, you don't read much on the topic, you wouldn't know."
Acknowledging puppets guarding western interests was never a problem for the western dominated UN.
The entire nation was declared independent in Sep 1945.
The west, mostly colonial powers themselves, resisted this initiative.
Obviously, they were afraid of a domino effect.
A 'domino effect' of colonies calling out independence, using Vietnam as an example.
Yup, and nations also willing to fight for their own freedom.
Same as the USA had to fight for their freedom against the Brits.
Don't you agree that one should be on the side of, and support those nations striving for freedom?
1
-
+King Baldwin IV
That isn't a 'correlation'. Using a story to explain history, is called an 'analogy'.
I made some alterations, to make your analogy more in line with the facts...
"It was as if a drug-dealing lady was being harassed and attacked by a bunch of guys when the security arrived.
A corrupt security, running a private extortion racket on the side, killed most of the guys that tried to attack the lady, by spraying the entire street with bullets....killing hundreds of women and kids. The remaining thieves, in order to not be killed, sign a restraining order and leave. As security goes back to the office and the lady tries to live her life.
2 years later, the guys break the restraining order and start harassing her. The drug-dealing lady, who now also runs a prostitution ring, contacts security and reports the breach of the restraining order, fending them off with her carry pistol. Security, now under different management, refuses to help her or enforce the order. The...cough, cough...'lady' defends herself until she runs out of ammo...."
Not a bad analogy.
Your analogy clearly explains why the 'security company' failed.
I actually agree.
The 'bad guys' won :-)
(BTW, that is called 'two wrongs don't make a right')
"After that, she is taken, raped, enslaved, and told that she deserved it by Ralph Bernhard."
Incorrect.
Nobody on this thread except you (Agent Orange, killing 2.5 million Vietnamese civilians), is making excuses for any wrongful action.
There happens to be a difference between 'explaining something' (in other words HOW and WHY events unfold the way they do), and 'apologia' (aka 'bad excuses').
Your method of debating is quite clear.
Throw an allegation out there, forcing the opposite to deny it. If not, you can call your opposite a 'commie sympathizer'. LOL. People are not stupid King...ahem 'Baldwin'.
"Yes, I would have resumed hostilities. The RVN would have performed ground operations provided with ammunition by the US. The US would have bombed Hanoi, military targets, and removed North Vietnam's ability to conduct war."
That is why you are a fool.
"It is called keeping your honor."
You don't have a clue about honor.
Fighting for a corrupt regime is not honorable.
"The Republic of Vietnam was an independent nation, just ask all of the State Department officials that were irritated with the independence of No Dinh Diem. . . wait, you never read that, you don't read much on the topic, you wouldn't know."
Acknowledging puppets guarding western interests was never a problem for the western dominated UN.
The entire nation was declared independent in Sep 1945.
The west, mostly colonial powers themselves, resisted this initiative.
Obviously, they were afraid of a domino effect.
A 'domino effect' of colonies calling out independence, using Vietnam as an example.
Yup, and nations also willing to fight for their own freedom.
Same as the USA had to fight for their freedom against the Brits.
Don't you agree that one should be on the side of, and support those nations striving for freedom?
1
-
King Baldwin IV First off, I actually admire the USA. What I see though is a small percentage of Americans who constantly undermine everything the USA supposedly represents (freedom, democracy, liberty, property, justice).
I have already CLEARLY stated that I have no sympathy for the causes of non of the two sides.
My entire sympathy goes to the inhabitants of Vietnam, who were trampled between the interests of crooked regimes in a war of proxy.
Your heartfelt empathy for 'poor locals' is fake.
If you had any sympathy at all, you would have agreed that the alternative history of granting the Vietnamese nation an own state (pro-western style democracy) in 1945 was FAR more desirable than the chaos which followed, due to dominating colonial attitudes at a time that it should have been foreseeable that colonialism as a form of rule was outdated.
Your leaders supporting "a friend" (France) which did not represent the values proclaimed in the Constitution was hypocritical.
So far, you have not addressed this, which is telling...
Your misplaced romantic view of colonialism as a form of kindness and benevolence to the local inhabitants is a joke.
In almost every case, if left alone to develop without meddling, the locals would have developed better than under the yoke of colonialism.
South America is a good example.
Instead of the "alternative history" of independence with own leaders in 1945, you would have wished for an "alternative history" of more of this for the locals...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-23427726
....or this....
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-vietnam6aug06-story.html
What does that tell the observer about you?
Furthermore, if I were you, I'd google a few of the claims you make.
Idi Amin was NOT a communist.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/revealed-how-israel-helped-amin-to-take-power-100683.html
He was supported by the west to overthrow the government of Uganda. Another typical example of the meddling attitude that caused so many problems in Africa.
Apparently, crooks make good business partners....
Your statements are entirely confusing and contradictory.
For example:
"The British Empire was a very successful colonial power that improved the lives of nearly every peoples that were fortunate enough to be incorporated into it..."
Why did the...ahem....'fortunate peoples' of the USA opt out then?
Can you explain this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For somebody calling himself a 'historian' you should really know the following interesting facts.
"Hitler spread Communism throughout the world."
More correct would be to state that Hitler UNINTENTIONALLY spread communism.
His aim was to destroy it, and gather a little bit of 'Lebensraum' on the side....
"Hitler invited Communism further into Europe with the non aggression pacts and secret protocol."
It takes 2 to tango.
TWO mass-murdering autocrats signed it.
Stain could have refused to make a deal with Hitler, especially so since Hitler had proven in March 1939 that he did not honor negotiated deals.
"Hitler betrayed Communism and Germany lost! "
Hitler di not 'betray Stalin/communism'.
BOTH mass-murdering psychopaths betrayed the people they ruled over, because BOTH wanted war as a way of advancing their respective ideologies...
"Hitler's war of aggression ultimately spread Bolshevik Communism and American Imperialism at the expense of Europe. "
Again, BOTH Hitler and Stalin wanted war.
Hitler wanted to invade Poland, to gain a common border with the SU.
Stalin hoped fro a long-drawn out war between Germany, France and GB, like in WW1, so he could marched over the devastated lands as the laughing 3rd party.
"Historians mention Spain because it shows German aggression in Europe before WW2."
Why don't those historians mention the Spanish Riff War, including the use of Mustard Gas, as an example of Spanish brutality?
"Germany was basically taking the piss out of France and Britain by rearming, intervening and retaking former land lost in the Versailles Treaty. "
Germany was taking the piss out of GB and France because Hitler broke the Munich accord, proving that he could not be trusted to keep his word.
'Uniting German speakers' was a lie, proven in March 1939, when German forces annexed Prague.
"How about Russia attempts to take the former territories they lost when USSR collapsed?"
Unacceptable, since the only valid premise should be 'Self determination'...in other words, what people want for themselves, based on common consensus.
"Would you support Putin invading Eastern Europe and Half of Germany?"
Certainly not...see above...self determination...
"I mean after all those lands were Soviets and "liberated" from Nazi tyranny. "
The communist weren't much better. ask almost any Pole, Czech or Hungarian. They are glad the commies are gone. That makes the term 'liberation' a rather sad one...more like 'exchanging' one ruthless form of oppression for another.
"Would you support Stalin sending Military forces to Spain like Hitler?"
Any form of meddling by any foreign nation is unacceptable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Harris was a liar. He lied to the British people about the effectiveness of Area Bombing (aka the policy of killing 'enemy' population).
Although he was fighting on the better side (against utter evil), he nevertheless allowed himself and his talents as organizer and a leader of men to be misused for a policy which had the direct intention of sending soldiers to kill civilians. He should have refused, and it would have had no impact on the Allied war effort whatsoever. After the war was over, he became extremely unpopular, almost an outcast. He lied to the public in an effort of justifying the many deaths (not only civilians, but also the 55,000 British and Commonwealth airmen).
One blatant lie I personally researched a few years ago concerned Harris' claim that "Bomber Command destroyed a third of all submarines before they were completed". Gröner's book (ISBN 3-7637-6215-9) on the Kriegsmarine lists all German ships ordered during the war, incl. the roughly 1,400 submarines ordered or started (1162 completed during WW2). On pages 85-100 , the book lists every single submarine, and it's fate. Only 58 German submarines were destroyed as a result of air raids, and only a portion of these were destroyed by the RAF (the majority was by US precision bombing raids).
Now, that a far cry from the "one third" claimed by Harris for his Bomber Command.
Anybody who bases his opinion on Area Bombing, according to a lie, is therefore misguided.
On top of that, Harris also stole credit where credit was due, from the airmen of the USAAF. Like a thief, he simply claimed that his orders had played a huge role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, by stealing the hard labor of others. He simply claimed the destruction caused by US precision bombing as his own, and used it to justify fighting a war on civilians.
So?
Should we admire liars and thieves?
1
-
ProSquidPro
Yes, we need 'enlightment'. The kind of 'enlightment' Ronald means (I think), would and should have avoided the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which set in motion the entire chain of events -- botched up peace, civil war, ISIS, crimes against humanity, terror in Paris and Brussels, and yes...refugees.
Where were the 'enlightened' people in 2003 (mainly GB and USA) when their countries were drifting to war?
Where were the 'enlightened' people throughout all those years their and our governments instated and SUPPORTED despots and crooks in shitholes all over the world?
Where were the 'enlightened' while WE supported and upheld the dictator Saddam Hussein, who killed his own people, and invaded neighbors (Iran)?
Where are the 'enlightened' people today, because all of this continues as we speak?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Michał Kilijanek I completely agree with your first paragraph. I have absolutely no sympathy for a rich German aristocrat crying over spillt milk (lost land). What is gone, is gone.
However, we have laws, and it is his right to clarify whether a claim is valid.
IMO, it should not be valid, since (as you have pointed out) it would be unfair to the people who live there now, often also displaced from eastern areas of pre-WW2 Poland after the war.
It would simply be a revolving system of injustice.
With your paragraph 2, you have pointed out exactly what happens when opportunistic politicians involve themselves in what are basically personal disputes. Oil is thrown on fires, and moleheaps turn into mountains — the press gets involved, and soon people get carried away with senseless violence.
IMO, politicians should only be allowed to involve themselves if there is a justified grievance, stated by an objective way, for example a signature gathering action (petition signatures), or official polls.
Politicians on a personal crusade in order to gather support for his/her personal career is a big put off for me.
They often don't really care about the situation, but simply use it as a tool to gain public support.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Evan Wimberly WW2 practically started in 1919.
It was unresolved issues. Versailles and Trianon was enforced onto millions of Hungarians, Austrians, Germans, Croats, Poles, Slovens, and others.
These ill fated decisions taken in 1919 came back to Europe to haunt us when Adolf came to power.
He saw there was a chance to divide and rule....
If you understand the principle of "claiming something by force", then you also understand that the term ' Sudetengerman' is actually artificial. These were Austrians living in a state called Austria-Hungary for 200 years.
After WW1, they were " taken by force", literally at gunpoint...
Yes, sometimes bad things come back to haunt us....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+record Thanks for that personal note.
Your grandfather and his brothers were true heroes. Dragged into a war they did not wish for, yet keeping a just concept of "wrong" and "right" is admirable.
It is very easy for today's couch potatoes to lean back and pass moral judgement on those who suffered through so much. I try to avoid that with my comments, and I try to stick to the facts.
Yes, opinions were certainly varied, even in times of war, and that's OK. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, and some people's idea that there has to be a sort of "one TRUTH for all" is ridiculous.
I'm not sure whether he was right about his idea that the victims of Nazi crimes died as a result of his actions.
I wish I could have talked to him, since I would have convinced him (with pure logic), that his misconceptions here were completely unfounded.
I can assure you that NOTHING he did, either directly or indirectly led to the starvation of a single Nazi prisoner, camp inmate, or other unfortunate "subhuman" (sic) like Gypsies or mentally ill.
(of course, there were unfortunate deaths of these people by Allied actions, but these were due to mis-identification or bad intelligence, which is common and unavoidable in times of war)
All of these unfortunate people were "marked" due to the fact that they did not fit the criteria of the Nazi ideology.
They were already dead, the day they were picked up and transported off.
NOTHING your grandfather could have done. could have saved them.
NOTHING he did, led to them suffering.
I wish I could have told him that myself. I find it sad that he died, with these thoughts on his mind.
I assume he has passed away. So all I can say is let him RIP.
Thanks to him, we live in a better world.
Not perfect, but definitely better :-)
Regards.
1
-
***** So, you wouldn't think twice if a higher ranking soldier came to you and told you to throw grenades into the houses which you know are occupied by "enemy" women and children?
In case you protest, he comes out with a piece of paper, stating that it is official government policy to "de-house" these people, and if they died, tough luck, because they "work for the enemy".
Would you kill without thinking?
That is, in principle, what my initial comment is about.
Hats off to those who doubted that what they were doing was the right thing, because hindsight says that it WAS both ineffective and counterproductive to aim for the city centers, at a time when new advances (1943/44) meant that taking out large area factories and industrial estates was possible.
The policy of Area Bombing stayed the same, even though the technology, crew experience and aircraft had improved.
NOT changing the policy, meant that Allied soldiers died, because German production increased, and as a result, more weapons reached the battlefields. NOT taking out the factories (although it was technically possible by 1943/44) lead to Allied soldiers dying.
Why NOT protest if the docs our kids watch don't say this?
Instead, the historians still repeat age-old misconceptions and propaganda slogans about a war which ended 70 years ago.
I bet there were MANY aircrew in 1943/44 who thought "Why are we still aiming for church spires? Why don't we hit those Tiger tank factories? I know we CAN hit these factories..."
It must have been frustrating knowing your buddies are down there fighting Tiger tanks, and you are sitting in a bomber, 5 tons of bombs in your belly, risking your life aiming for a church tower?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
hotspur666 So you had a look at some of my other comments.
Firstly, thank you for reading.
Secondly, which of these is 'Nazi'?
Yes, I looked at your comments, including this one:"...GOD BLESS BREIVIK..."
I assume you are referring to the mass murderer of 90 teens in Norway. If not, please clarify your statement. I guess that statement would deter any decent human being from joining forces with you.....
Please, do let us all know why you think I am 'Nazi', and then come back and actually follow a statement up with some evidence. Any arsehole can say something.
I can say 'Your daughter is a slut', or something similar, and that will just be pulled out of my arse, because I don't have any evidence.
It is PROVING what you write (by presenting evidence, or sound deductive reasoning) which separates the straw from the chaff.
So?
Evidence?
Which of my comments is 'Nazi'?
You said it, you prove it...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Marvin Cooper Well, here's the problem.
If you are constantly going back, looking for an excuse for own actions, then you'll always find it. So, the first German civilians who died from bombing by the RAF, was in May 1940. That was looooong before any British civilian was killed by German bombing.
Also, it was only up to February 1942 when the bomber boys were still trying to hit 'factories and yards. Then, the Area Bombing directive was issued, which Portal amended with these words: '...To make clear, if it is not already understood, the targets will be the built up areas, NOT for example, the factories and yards...'
GB started the policy of carpet bombing, not the Luftwaffe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
About Mass Observation
Polls are only neutral if the organisation conducting the poll is neutral.
If not, whoever conducts the poll, can load a question whichever way they wish, to achieve a desired outcome.
http://de.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=loaded+question
For example:
During or after the Blitz, a typical 1941/1942 question might have been "Shall our bomber boys bomb the Germans back, in return for what they did in Coventry?" Y/N
In this case, the majority would have most likely said "Yes".
OR (in case you wish to achieve another answer, one could "load" the question in a different way)
"Should our bomber boys take out the German tank factories, in order to assist our boys to fight Rommel?"
What do you think the average citizen would have answered here?
I grew up with historians who cherry picked their Mass Observation statistics for years. Of course, they wished to assert (or insinuate) that every person (or at least overwhelming majorities) in GB "thought the same".
That is, quite simply not the case.
I'm grateful that Greyling has clarified this point.
He states clearly that other opinions existed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rikudō Sennin I disagree.
Firstly, Hiroshima and Kyoto were chosen because they had not been fire bombed so far, making it clear that their military significance were neglectable. If these had been vital to the Japanese war economy, they would have already been razed to the ground by conventional attack.
The only reason Kyoto was saved, was because Henry Stimson had spent time there, and obviously didn't want to kill the people who had been kind to him during his stay — so the 'logic' was to kill people he didn't know....
Secondly, if the military base had been chosen as the target area (epicenter), then every single Japanese soldier would have died, while less civilians would have been killed (of course, civilians would always have died, irrelevant of the target area).
Thirdly, Hiroshima was chosen because it was undamaged, and would supply a giant open air experimental field after the war was over, to test the results of a nuclear attack on the surviving human beings.
Now bear in mind that this 'thinking pattern' comes from people who tell us that gassing and burning people is wrong....
Those in favor of aiming nukes at civilians, should at least not claim the rights of higher moral values, like this clown in a priest costume, or the previous poster....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** That is incorrect...drummed into you by continuous repetition.
First off, there was a potential chance that the nuke could have been a dud, making the entire reasoning baseless.
Secondly, there was obviously another choice, which was the negotiated settlement.
This would have meant dissing Stalin and the commies, negotiating a peace treaty with the Japanese leadership (based on a complete US occupation of all remaining Japanese colonies, and areas, incl. the Kurilles, and southern Sachalin) and avoiding more than 500,000,000 post-war communist enemies in China, Korea, and Vietnam.
The only condition granted to the Japanese, would then be the guarantee of the status of Emperor Hirohito....nothing else.
This is not only hindsight.
Only a fool would have believed that Stalinism and capitalism could have lived together in harmony, once the war was over....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
arealbabycthulhu My comment is about past history, from which we should draw objective conclusions for future actions.
What we see happening now is the result of a hundred years of (mostly) western meddling.
Most people in the world are decent.
Leave them alone, to sort out their issues without interference from outside, and there will be peace in the world.
The UN is a failure in this respect.
It cannot stop foreign interference in local matters, leading to strife, affront, uprisings, and sometimes war.
The weak nations in the world are merely a battlefield for the ambitions of stronger outside powers.
The only answer is a stronger UN, with executive powers, NOT ever more national arrogance and meddling.
If we cannot accept that change is necessary, then change will not come.
If change doesn't come, we should stop whining about the results of our own actions....
ISIS does not represent the will of a majority of the local population, which social structure has eroded as a result of the US and British decision to invade Iraq in 2003. It is an entirely home-grown problem.
1
-
arealbabycthulhu OK, so let's change to the present.
Radical Islam is an ideology.
It doesn't appeal to a majority of Muslims, who are actively collaborating with the west in efforts to contain it.
Therefore, the first thing to realize from past history is that ideologies can NEVER be 'exterminated' or 'stamped out' completely, because it is inside the heads of people.
Even during WW2, and against populist belief, Nazism was not 'exterminated' or 'stamped out'. What WW2 achieved, was to remove Nazis from positions of power, and remove Nazi advocates from positions of influence, from which they could meddle behind the scenes in order to create the world they personally adored (against the wishes of a majority).
The same is true for any ideology which does not conform to the desires of the decent majority of all people.
What history has taught us is that ALL ideologies which are opposed by majorities, will eventually have to bow to the wishes of the decent majority. That is what happened to communism. Since it had to be enforced or imposed from the top down, and had no support from a majority unless imposed on this majority by force, it disappeared when this force weakened.
The same is true for radical Islam.
First fact — it will always exist. We can't 'bomb it to oblivion' or stamp it out. The only thing we can achieve is to remove radicals from positions of power and influence, as once happened to Nazism and Communism in eastern Europe.
What we should try to achieve in the long run is to create a barrier between average decent law-abiding Muslims and the ideologies of radicals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Irish America Soft drugs were outlawed, in order to have the leverage to be brutal to Blacks and Hippies during the Vietnam war. It was ONLY introduced, so that if the cops were brutal, or killed one of these marginal groups, they could just say:'They were criminals.'
Only stupid people still believe that the billions poured in the war on drugs are worth it, when it obviously isn't.
The war on drugs is just a myth. A slight of hand trick by magicians to fool people who are too stupid to realize how they are being tricked and manipulated, a direct result of their own stupidity.
Yet, even though this is an uncovered truth, the laws are not changed.
Of course, a gram of weed is soooo terrible, that people have to die for it. Then Froggie over there can add it to his 'statistics' as 'evidence' of how 'criminal' blacks are. Nazi methods.
That is the mentality and the intelligence of a frog....
We are actually arguing with a frog !
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
FletchforFreedom Maybe you should study basic English first before you study fancy theories.
We are not discussing 'salaries' needing skilled labor, but unskilled labor (wages), for which there are hundreds or thousands of applicants per job opening. Of course, sought after experts or specialists don't need minimum wage laws. Same is true for dangerous or unpleasant work.
FYI, a 'fact' is something which has happened, or known to be true.
dictionary.com
Therefore, in your theory, an example of a 'fact' is a statement like: 'in modern capitalism, workers are paid wages for labor'. That is a fact, and is not up for debate.
As soon as you add something to that, you end up with a 'theory' or ' hypothesis' (you can Google these definitions yourself, thank you).
Therefore, a sentence like 'in modern capitalism, workers are paid fair wages', is obviously debatable, making it a theory or hypothesis.
You're wellcome :-)
1
-
1
-
FletchforFreedom I'm simply pointing out a basic flaw in your argument.
In case you wish to state that doctors, pilots, Apple employees or oil rig workers don't need minimum wage, then we have no differences.
America, however, is a two-class society.
It's the first and the third world in one country.
For the lowest part, the 'third world' part of the US, your fancy theory doesn't work.
Now you state that the problem is the lack of jobs?
Well, that is exactly the point.
Never mind how you twist and turn it, the wages paid depend on the type of job. With no regulation some scumbag employers will pay 3 or 4 dollars an hour, and some desperate soul will STILL do it.
For that there is a NEED for minimum wage, and social security.
Minimum wage will ensure that a laborers will get a wage that will enable them to feed a family.
Social security will ensure that the 5-10% of people who will never find work (seeing that there are not enough jobs in their sector) don't end up on the street or as petty criminals (for lack of alternatives).
That is the 'European model'.
1
-
1
-
FletchforFreedom Well, for all your eloquent typing, you can't deny that there is a link between poverty and income. Google 'poverty in the USA', and see what comes up. Some of the sites are official government statistics.
This video IS about the minimum wage, and the types of jobs which require it.
My comments are not about any other sectors.
That some employers will only pay what they think they can get away with, is also a fact. It is the fact that the minimum wage makes it illegal, that force employers to pay at least that.
Pointing out that there are some employers who voluntary pay more to get better workers is not valid, unless you also name the field these higher wages are achieved in.
I'm sure it's not the proverbial 'burger flipper'....
There is a necessity for laws and regulations to protect workers from deprivation — based on the principle of the worst case scenario, not the best case scenario.
Of course there are exceptions to the rule, of employers who see it as a moral duty to pay a fair wage, but it remains a basic fact that there are also people out there who are not nice :-)
It is for these exceptions to the rule that laws and regulations are necessary.
Again, nobody needs laws for the best case scenario, but the worst case scenario.
Another fact is that the US can't compete with low wage countries like China or regions like Central America, meaning that certain jobs will be lost to these countries or regions forever. The people who used to do these jobs are still there though, and there is no alternative they can turn to.
So, what's left?
A simple fact, is that there are not enough jobs for unskilled labor, but these unskilled laborers are there. They just happened to have been born, so what are you going to do about it?
Simply cutting minimum wage is not going to create a job for them.
How will that happen?
They simply lack the necessary mental capacity for jobs which need higher degrees of intelligence or skill. Even if they did have the skills, they would simply increase the number of applicants for the better jobs in other sectors.
Can you actually name a sector in the US that is desperately looking for labor, but can't fill open positions? I don't think one exists, and even if it did, the typical laborer who needs a minimum wage law to protect him from exploitation, is probably not skilled or intelligent enough to do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
FletchforFreedom I've already psychoanalysed both our comments :-)
Your use of words (for example 'gravitate towards') makes it clear to me that you know that some people will always exploit, and others will always be exploited....but you'll leave that to common decency to right itself (a priest or an NGO somewhere).
That 'conscience of the majority', is not as powerful a tool as the law, the courts and a hefty fine. The intention of these is to scare off. In other words, avoid the worst BEFORE it happens.
Our difference here is simply one of 'prevention before injustice occurs' (my standpoint) vs 'correction after the event has started' (seemingly, your standpoint).
It is the difference between doing a yearly preventive maintenance on your car to try to avoid problems BEFORE they arise, or simply driving your car until something breaks.
None of these two are 'wrong' or ' right'.
It is simply a question of one's own mindset.
You want to explain a great idea (granted, it is a great idea), and I'll spoil it by telling you how human nature will corrupt it....
I do yearly maintenance on my car BTW :-)
There is no need to try and convince me, as there is no need for me to try and convince you.
In end effect, society will 'gravitate towards' the majority's will :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheVillaAston So destroying factories which produced weapons systems for the German armed forces, was "no guide to how the RAF should operate over Germany" ?
Face it.
The decision to end the war by killing "enemy" women and kids was a failure. The self declared goal of killing "enemy" women and kids was to end the war.
Well, 1942 passed, and the war did not end.
1943 passed, and the war did not end.
1944 passed and the war did not end.
1945 came, ground forces entered Berlin, and the war was over.
Killing enemy women and kids did not end the war.
Ground forces was what ended the war, and every bomb dropped that did not directly aid Allied ground forces, was a wasted effort. Every bomb aimed at an "enemy" city center, was automatically NOT aimed at a factory producing weapon systems for the German armed forces. The location of these factories producing arms, is irrelevant, since destroying them would have led to a shorter war, with less casualties. Renault in Paris, Alkett in Berlin or Phillips in Eindhoven. Irrelevant. If it was a factory producing weapons, it was a valid target..
The 55,000 RAF airmen who died (the majority) on missions to kill "enemy" civilians, died in vain.
1
-
1
-
+TheVillaAston You wrote "The factory in question was producing lorries, not weapons systems. "
I wrote "So destroying factories which produced weapons systems for the German armed forces, was..."
Renault in Billancourt was also a tank factory. At the time of destruction, the plant was refurbishing captured Char B tanks, for service with the German Army (incl. the preparation for a flame thrower version for service on the Eastern Front).
Even "lowly" trucks, are vital in a war of mobility. I hope we don't have to argue about whether WW2 was a "war of mobility". It was. Around 50 German divisions relied (partially or fully) on French trucks for their mobility.
Logic therefore dictates that every step undertaken to reduce the mobility of one's enemy, is a valid one, and a risk worth taking. Logic also dictates that every step undertaken to attack valid targets which reduce the effectiveness of the enemy's forces, is a valid use of bombers. (considering the substantial investment in resources made in building up Bomber Command)
So, yet again one of your childish and badly researched "comebacks" has failed. You should research more carefully, and stop relying on the History Channel for your information....
1
-
TheVillaAston OK, so French civilians producing trucks and tanks for the German armed forces (and the factories they worked in) should therefore be spared?
It is exactly this kind of "political consideration" which cost the Allies lives. Surely, a factory is a factory, irrelevant of the location. In case that factory is located in an area under Nazi control, the people who work there, should know (or be made aware of) the risk they are taking by collaboration. Correct?
Strangely enough, when it came to the Allied invasion, "political considerations" were suddenly unimportant, and 75,000 French civilians died in Allied bombing raids.
Make sense?
Furthermore, why are you constantly jumping around, trying to change the topic?
You made a statement, which was wrong. Then, your "comeback" consists of changing the topic (Now, it is suddenly irrelevant what the factory was producing)
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheVillaAston I started off this comment section by pointing out how the analysis of the raid on Renault, should have led to a revision of the Area Bombing Policy.
It should have been revised, with more emphasis on the destruction of specific large area plants and industrial zones in Germany.
That would would have had chances of success in 1942, and (had it been followed with determination) would have made a massive impact from late 1943 on wards (my "Tiger tank timeline")
You then stated that you don't consider it valid to bomb targets in France, because that would result in the death of French civilians. That is, by definition, is the "political considerations" which are often mentioned in the reports and thesis (the death of innocent people in occupied territory)
In your last comment, you were making references to "dropping letters on French homes" informing that by building tanks for the Nazis, they would be considered collaborators (?????)
Honestly, every French citizen building tanks for the Nazis, should have been able to conclude that all by him/herself, and would not have needed a "letter from GB".
I want to avoid the debate from going off an a tangent.
So, let's get back to "the basics".
Let's concentrate on "the big picture".
1
-
TheVillaAston OK, so back to "the big picture", which (concerning the Area Bombing Policy) was that Allied leaders (the War Cabinet) thought that the war could be ended, and that an invasion of the European continent made unnecessary, by "driving home the the German people" that they were going to loose.
Military leaders (i.e. Harris) who supported this theory, where put into positions to implement this new POLICY.
So in February 1942, it was decided that the war was going to end (according to these visionaries), by merely going out to kill as many civilians as possible, as effectively and economically as possible, by firebombing city centers with specialized and specially developed weapons.
The objective of Area Bombing was to divert a large proportion of attacks away from targets like "factories and yards" (quoting PortaI :"...suppose it is clear that the aiming points will be the built up areas, and not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories where these are mentioned in Appendix A. This must be made quite clear if it is not already understood.”).
Of course, the War Cabinet knew that such a decision was not going to be acceptable´or popular among large portions of society, which resulted in the use of euphemisms, which were clarified by amendments as quoted above.
When targets with a proven value to the enemy were destroyed, severely hampering German activity to wage war, Harris concluded that these to be "panacea" (to quote Harris)
How am I doing so far?
Please confirm whether you consider this conclusion to be accurate, so that there are no further misunderstandings.
Over to you...
1
-
TheVillaAston Actually, you are doing very well, ...at repeating accepted history. I know what "accepted history" tells us, because I've read the same books, and watched the same docs you have.
In South Africa, I grew up with the "World at War"- view of WW2. I thought EXACTLY like you not so long ago.
In the meantime, I've done a lot of other reading in other languages, incl. Dutch and German, and have concluded that the "very British" view of things are not always valid.
To address your specific points.
Firstly, you are talking about 1942. I'm talking about 1943/44. Harris' ridiculous attitude of sticking to to a policy which was not working, meant that the bombs were still aimed at church spires, instead of chimney stacks, LONG after crews had shown that the could do more.
Mainstream historians (whose main motive is to uphold the existing view of the war) wish to proclaim the view that it was an "unfortunate necessity", rather than "free choice" to bomb city centers.
What started out as "unfortunate necessity" in 1942 (when it was still difficult, but not impossible to attack pin point targets at night), turned into "free choice" by 1943/44. By this time, it WAS possible to knock out large area factories or industrial zones, because technology had advanced since 1942, the crews had matured, there were A LOT MORE bombers (economy of scale), navigation and tactics were better, etc. etc.
Here the catch, though.
Harris was too stuck in his ways to change his mind about how to use the forces at his disposal. He preferred to stick to the untried theory that populations of enemy countries would revolt and surrender if bombed hard enough. By this time 1943/44, it should have been clear that that wasn't going to happen.
Instead of an all out, well coordinated attack plan with the Americans, he preferred to send his bombers to targets of choice as often as he could possibly get away with. It would have been better to hit the same targets again and again (day AND night).
That led to a dissipation of the disposable forces.
Instead of "Klotzen nicht klekkern", the Allies were "Klekkern nicht klotzen". That, was Guderian's favorite saying, meaning that all energy should be concentrated, instead of wasted on many separate points of attack.
After the war, Albert Speer (LOL, I'm actually quoting him too) concluded that the Allied "round the clock" strategic warfare could have been much more effective, and led to an earlier end of the fighting, if the same targets had been attacked in shorter spaces of time. Instead, by wasting the effort on dropping bombs on city centers, it gave the Germans time to repair factories and plants, raising production right up to late 1944. Attacks which merely "created rubble" was the least of the Germans' worries.
Only then, and mostly as a result of lacking raw materials caused by the advance of ground forces and the attacks on infrastructure, did German production slack and the war effort fail.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1998/Vol24_2/10.htm
Furthermore, to cling to an outdated view of things, is entirely against new findings and thesis. One thing the BBC never mentioned when I grew up, was the cost of the strategic war effort on GB, and how it played a large part in GB's loss of influence and general economic downward spiral.
You can google "BRITAIN 1939 – 1945:
THE ECONOMIC COST OF STRATEGIC
BOMBING", for a full study of this.
IMO, one shouldn't ignore the big picture when discussing various specific points.
1
-
+TheVillaAston As with all your previous comments, I could now laboriously copy and paste all the points you have raised, and counter them ONE BY ONE (as I have done before).
Then, you will just simply ignore every one of those points I countered, and move on to something else, which I will then (again laborious counter again )
Five comments later, you will then simply repeat something WHICH I HAVE ALREADY COUNTERED (note, without any acknowledgement on your part)
For example:
"We have already established that there was no revenge motive governing RAF bombing policy."
Listen to Harris himself.
"Sir Arthur Harris Speech - Area Bombing"
(copy and paste into the search bar of YT)
No revenge?
Do you need English lessons?
We have not "established" anything.
You should spend less time reading, and more time THINKING about what you are reading.
Can you THINK, or only REPEAT what you hear?
You have obviously been indoctrinated by historians in the same way as religious people have been indoctrinated by priests. I'm not merely stating this. Your entire misguided logic, and the way you "debate", is the same as a "debate" with any religious person.
Your "history" is about repeating the same old crap again and again until everybody believes it.
If somebody comes up with a good argument, try misdirection ("Your a Nazi", "White South Africans blah, blah, blah...") to CHANGE THE TOPIC.
So, now I'm "anti British" because I'm pointing out that BRITISH SOLDIERS DIED BECAUSE OF A MISTAKEN POLICY.
WTF?
Try hardheadedness, like your hero Harris, who sent thousands of BRITISH young men to their VERY BRITISH graves for almost nothing in return.
HOW ABOUT THAT FOR ANTI BRITISH???
You obviously still believe that the EXCUSES dished up to you ("the weather", "bad visibility", "88mm guns from Russian front", etc., etc.) are the truth?
Well, for your info, they are not very good EXCUSES, and the ease with which these EXCUSES can be countered, proves that are are nothing else but bad EXCUSES.
(Made after the event, to cover up the REASON for Area Bombing)
Mr. Villa Aston, what was the one and only REASON for Area Bombing?
(In case you wish to answer this question, please don't confuse the words "REASON" and "EXCUSE", as explained above VERY CLEARLY)
Mr Villa Aston.
For a debate, or a discussion, one needs an OPEN MIND.
If one doesn't have an open mind, one is INDOCTRINATED.
If one is INDOCTRINATED, one gives LECTURES.
I don't need a lecture.
I prefer discussions with open minded people.
(BTW. Are you a teacher or a religious person by any chance? Just curious...)
I'm perfectly willing to change my mind, as soon as somebody comes up with a halfway plausible way to counter the points I have raised.....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Ben Johnson I actually agree with almost everything you say.
IMO, the Schlieffen Plan (as it was known), being carried out the way it was planned (obviously outdated, and more suitable for 1906 than for 1914), was more a political failure than a military.
First off, the Schlieffen Plan had no political oversight.
Here is the focal point of my argument:
Secondly, "history" as we know it, is often more of events which DID NOT happen, as well as events which DID happen.
To illustrate what I mean.
Why didn't French politicians clearly state that France had no interests in the Balkans? Why didn't Poincare clearly say that they would not support Russia in case of an aggressive intervention in the Balkans by Russia?
The Entente Treaty clearly allowed for this, since the treaty was defensive in nature.
Here, one could use a historical parallel. Italy famously made use of this possibility, and clearly indicated that they were going to stay out of a "Balkan conflict" (at this stage it was still a Balkan Crisis).
The fact that France did NOT indicate that it would stay out of a Central Powers vs. Russian conflict, meant that France would (most likely) also not have stayed out if a war had broken out (for any reason, even a war which did not have a formal obligation for France to join).
Therefore, as far as German leaders were concerned, there would be two front war anyway (because French leaders did not opt out of that scenario).
If there was going to be a two front war anyway, with no way to avoid it other than a humiliating step down, why not fight it with the initiative on one's own side ? (German military leaders' standpoint)
German politicians would certainly have seen it differently, but here we get back to my first point, which was that there was no political oversight to military matters in Germany.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At 53:20 mins
Patrick Bishop, entirely correctly, describes what beset Allied ground forces entering Germany in 1945.
When a beautiful town is entirely destroyed, there is also no incentive (on the German leaders' side) to withdraw from it, and hand it over in an effort to save cultural values.
In end effect, the "Stalingrad"- effect set in.
Every military historian I know of agrees that it was the fact that Stalingrad was ruined, and that it was exactly these ruins which aided the Russian defenders, and made it more difficult for the attacking Germans.
Correct so far?
After Wurzburg (a cultural heritage of no strategic or military value) was bombed to ruins, the German forces dug into the ruins (same as Stalingrad), and held out for days. Would the defenders have simply handed over such a city, if it had not already been destroyed, in a effort to save it?
This happened in Paris, which was declared an open city in 1940. Since it was not "defended to the last man" in a stupid, already lost cause, the Germans advanced quickly, and France also collapsed quickly. The same would have happened if Würzburg had never been bombed. The German commanders on the spot would probably have retreated, meaning that the Allies could have simply driven through it, without a long battle.
So, when it comes to "learning the lessons", the military mindset is "thick as a brick".....
1
-
1
-
Nyctasia From the POV of the victims, it hardly makes a difference whether one is killed, maimed or starved to death by an invader sent by London, Paris, Berlin, Washington, Vienna, Brussels or Madrid.
The victims are dead, and the least the current generation may hope for is an apology.
Where the victims of German crimes against humanity are concerned, that apology is always forthcoming (almost always from official sources, and by a large majority of the population), and the descendants may at least have the peace of mind that they have been done wrong upon.
This is not the case where other countries are concerned.
First tentative steps have been undertaken (Canada, Australia, etc), but by and large, the descendants of the victims have to face the descendants of the invaders, with their arrogant attitude of "Ah well, that was a long time ago. That doesn't concern me."
All added up, the victims of white expansion to rule the world, go into the millions. As a whole, the victims of German crimes against humanity make up only a fraction of the final total. Why the constant focus on Germany?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Concerning Appeasement
Is it only me who is getting tired of these posts which constantly turn up on videos dealing with appeasement ? (aka 'compromise). Specifically Hitler and Chamberlain.
Right wingers just love stating that 'they should have read Mein Kampf' .
The answer to that rhetoric is simple. They didn't. It was a stupid book, and therefore only very few people actually read it cover to cover.
Other posts on videos like this, often express the opinion that 'if there had been a Churchill in power in 1935 or 1936, we would never have had a WW2'.
The insinuation is that it was 'weeny liberals' like Chamberlain who constantly appeased the fascist dictators, which led to (i.e.) Germany gaining exactly that power which was later turned against the West. The conclusion generally reached (using the often frowned upon hindsight) is that 'if we had stepped in, in 1935 or 1936, and invaded Germany, none of this would have happened'.
Having 'a Churchill' in power, mostly plays a large role in these assertions, and certain amount of hero worship plays a role.
These assertions, are however, entirely contrary to the facts and evidence, and is therefore an assumption/conclusion based on the poster's personal mindset.
Here are the facts.
The conservative British politicians generally did not oppose fascism, as long as (and for the duration of time) it did not represent a direct threat to British interests.
Churchill himself, was largely indifferent to the fascist governments in Germany and Italy, until he swung around and recognized the danger they posed.
In order for Churchill to do an about turn, he would have needed to have had a more reserved standpoint before that point in time.
Evidence of Churchill's standpoint towards fascism, and one could even say a certain measure of support, is his reporting on the Spanish Civil War as a writer to conservative British newspapers.
At the early stages of the war, Churchill was completely in line with conservative British political opinion, in that he recognized a danger being posed by the (legal) Republican side (NOT by Franco). Since the Republican government was seen as 'communist' (leftist), the conservative British elite feared for the status quo concerning British interests (economic, trade, etc.) Churchill was therefore in line with conservative opinions at that time, which expressed a general support of Franco, and the forces which supported Franco.
Around the middle of the Spanish Civil War (around late 1937), Churchill began changing his mind, and now expressed a more neutral point of view.
He was still not firmly against the German and Italian intervention.
It wasn't until the the final stages of the war, by which time there had also been general swing in public opinion in GB, that Churchill finally changed his mind, and was firmly against the fascist intervention. Again, this had nothing to do with any concern for the Spanish population, but rather a concern about British interests.
Therefore, a statement like 'we should have invaded Germany in 1935 or 1936', makes absolutely no sense at all. One would have to admit that even Churchill recognized the danger posed by fascism far too late, since by late-1936, Germany and Italy were allies (the Axis Rome-Berlin), and any invasion of Germany would have meant a wider European war, the results of which would have been even more catastrophic than WW1.
So, Churchill only changed his mind about the danger posed by fascism, and Hitler in the course of late-1937/early-1938.
My personal conclusion?
Maybe Churchill should have read Mein Kampf :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
doceigen There are many victims.
First and foremost, the lady who was killed or badly injured, and her family.
Then, we have the soldiers who did this, many of whom will return with PTSD.
Then, there are millions of American victims, who live in slums as bad as the worst dumps in Africa, because trillions of dollars are poured into sandpit shitholes,and there isn't enough left for roads and schools in the States.
Then, there are more victims.
Go to the VA hospitals, and you can visit those victims too. Body parts blown off, holes in their souls and shattered to the core.
Go on cheering death.
I'll rejoice the day you join their ranks, and then finally understand what you have been cheering all this time...
1
-
doceigen You claim that this lady was a terrorist. How about some evidence?
As for 'no Americans live in slums like that', you might want to Google 'COLONIAS IN THE USA'.
As for the state of the US infrastructure, Google the report by the association of US Civil Engineers. Of course, according to you, these are all 'SOCIALISTS' too, complaining about a lack of some 3 trillion dollars to fix roads, schools, dams, and levies. Too bad about all those trillions buried in the desserts of Iraq....
VA hospitals?
You might want to Google 'VA hospitals understaffed', to find out how missing dollars and missing staff keeps those unfortunate souls waiting, and waiting, and waiting....
Oh, and hate?
Honestly.....
1
-
1
-
1
-
doceigen Obviously, I didn't write slow enough.
If one attempts to prove superiority, one sets a high benchmark. A benchmark which is not easy to reach.
In layman's terms, when your daddy reflects on your life, does he compare you to Charles Manson, and say 'Our boy did really well', OR does he compare you to Bill Gates and say 'Well, he's not a doing to bad, but he has a ways to go still..' ?
If you want to assess US superiority (let's stick to infrastructure),and then use that as a benchmark to strife for.
In other words, compare yourself to countries which don't go off invading other countries, and shooting up impoverished people all over the world, and therefore have the spare change to invest in their roads and schools.
Take Finland or Norway as a benchmark to strive for, not Swaziland or Somalia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pitt the Elder So you would approve if the other candidates make stupid proposals which they know they could never implement, all for the sake of getting stupid people to vote for them?
Do you want the election campaign to look like the Jerry Springer show? Is that what you really want?
Any candidate may now simply say any amount of bullshit, even if they know for a fact there isn't any conceivable way that what they say will EVER be implemented, because it wasn't a realistic proposal to start off with.
For example the 'building a wall' bull.
There is absolutely NO way that can and will EVER be built. Walls are ineffective, and if you disagree, then do some research on the border between the Spanish enclave of Mellila and Morocco. That's only a few miles long. It's several meters high, topped with barbed wire, cameras, electronics, the works. All the migrants do is pull up a few ladders and climb over.
It's an utterly crap idea to propose doing the same on a border THOUSANDS of miles long. He pulled it out of his arse, as you say, and Trump knows he's lying through his teeth. Even if he gets elected, there's just no way it will ever be built.
Then, he even goes on air and defends his plan.
Would you want somebody like that as president?
Aren't the ones you end up with bad enough? Does it have to get worse?
1
-
Pitt the Elder Well, why do you think the idea to build a wall doesn't pass congress?
Correct.
It isn't feasible.
It isn't possible to build a 2,000 mile long impregnable wall. Every mile would have to be as good as a high security prison. How much will that cost?
What about follow up costs like repairs, border patrols, training, and all that follows after that?
Bottom line, it's a stupid proposal that will NEVER pass ANY congress, even if Trump is president.
Trump knows that, yet he peddles this idea like a hooker, in order to fool dumb people.
Sure, every side makes promises they can't keep, but at least most of these promises were the basis of finding a compromise. Therefore, The Affordable Healthcare Act is not free, but affordable. I'd rather have 'affordable' as a result of compromise, than nothing at all...
As for Trump and his proposals (walls, badges for Muslims, etc.).
They are not even a basis for a compromise.
They are just plain stupid.
1
-
1
-
Pitt the Elder Of course, the man has a plan, and you know it. You have the intelligence to see though his plan, whereas others don't....
It goes roughly like this.
Reign in the anti establishment crowd with fairly decent proposals. Decent folks, high-IQ individuals who would like a decent form of religion, decent conservative Christians, and those who might favor a decent form of gun control (compromise), a decent form racial interaction....
But that's not the whole plan.
In order to gain a majority, he also wants to appeal to the racists, the white supremacists, the fanatical low IQ gun nuts, the ultra-right wing Christians, and any other gullible dumb fuck imaginable. Of course, if he's ever going to get voted into power, he's first going to disappoint the last crowd, because his proposals are moot to start off with.
Who cares, right?
In case he gets voted, let's hope he's not such a narcissistic egoistic clown as he appears at first sight, and disappoint the first crowd of decent folks too.
Of course, he's far far too decent to try and fool the people who really really believe in him :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Mark Kelly The myth of GB and France 'not being ready for war' is just that -- a myth.
GB and France as 'ready' or as 'unready' ad everybody else was.
It is just a myth spread by lobbyist for the military industrial complex, who, in the eternal struggle for funding, need to project an eternal image of fear, and underline these with historical examples.
Here are a few examples of how 'unready' GB and France were in 1914.
GB had by far the largest and most expensive, and most battle ready navy in the world. GB was a naval and colonial power, and it is therefore entirely natural that the army was small, mobile, and adapted for minor colonial wars.
France and Russia?
France and Russia actively engaged in war games once a year to tweak their war plans to invade Germany and A-H.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/31191/world-war-i-centennial-russia-promises-attack-germany
Russia also had active ambitions for the Bosporus, and these were also backed by French leaders (France and GB had also heavily invested in the Ottoman Empire), so that Russian hegemony would benefit business.
But, of course, whenever you ask somebody who wanted to rule the world, the most likely answer is always Germany.
Strange that...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
May I ask where you live? Switzerland or Bhutan?
In case it happens to be GB or the US, do you feel personally responsible for the mess that is now the Middle East? That being a direct result of the the moronic and ill-fated decision (against international law) to invade in 2003, leading to the chaos of civil war, ISIS, and the massive increase in international terrorism, mass exodus of refugees...
Who is responsible for wars?
Civilians in a democracy, with the full advance notice of a coming war, lied to by its leadership, but with the ability to protest?
Or, civilians who lived in a dictatorship, kept in the dark by censorship, and lied to about the reasons for war? (google Gleiwitz Incident false flag, and the propaganda lies of Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At 15:17 minutes.
'..the Poles probably would have...', and Hitler would have been turned back.
...and here is where they are wrong.
For all of those a who think 'a Churchill' would have been better for GB and the world in 1938.
First off, 'a Churchill' would have taken one look at the French army, safely dug into their Maginot Line, with their Maginot mind caps firmly in place, and thought '....advance to Berlin with those chaps? No way....'
An alliance with Poland? LOL, they already had one.
What next.
Maybe an alliance with Stalin, to create a two front war for Hitler?
Brilliant, but only at a first glance.
A look at the map, and one will notice that Germany and Russia didn't have a common border. The Poles would have needed to grant permission for Stalin's "liberators" to pass through in case of war. But, the Poles had some strange notions that Stalin would have liked Poland so much, that he would also never want to leave.
So much for that idea....
What else?
Ignore the Poles, and just make a deal with Stalin anyway?
That would most likely have resulted in a German-Polish mutual assistance pact (or even a full Polish alliance in the Axis). First feelers were already in place.
http://www.polishforums.com/history/president-moscicki-hermann-ring-hunting-47942/
The dictators in Warsaw and Berlin, would certainly have found an easy solution for their differences, and Poland's dreams of "Greater Poland" of the 17th century could have been given some new impetus. Certainly, Hitler would have contributed his share towards making the Poles happy, and "signed away" Lithuania (seeing that the Poles already had the capital city under their control) without a shred of conscience.
An extra 2 million Polish troops firmly embedded in the Axis armies, and fighting side by side with Germans, Slovaks, Romanians and Hungarians. Plus a starting point a 100 miles closer to Moscow, might just have been what was needed to defeat the SU in 1941.
Maybe "a Chamberlain" in 1938 was not such a bad thing after all.
Give the guy a break....
1
-
pebutts OK, I can see you know what you're talking about :-)
First off, there seems to be quite a few differences between the US and the different European tax models.
The reason I wrote '10%-ers' in quotation marks, is because it is impossible to make an exact figure. Like you said, the word ' wealth' is relative, and difficult to define exactly.
From what you write, I conclude that US and European tax models would also be difficult to compare. They probably have some similarities, and some differences. I can only speak of what I witnessed, doing the preparatory bookkeeping for the family I worked for for many years.
In the course of the years, I noticed that they had several advantages over mere 'wage slaves' like me. Just kidding, they were really nice, and their two employees earned more than in any similar jobs anywhere else.
The family had incomes from several sources, some inherited, and they constantly shifted funds around, exactly as you explained, on order to gain advantages of a lower tax rate for the current year.
The man had inherited some apartment blocks, the income of which he used for renovations, so that he basically drastically reduced the taxable income for the rent he received. If he needed money, he sold some flats, and (exactly like you said), if he got a bundle of money, he invested in a new project. In Germany, one only has to keep a house or apartment for ten years, then the resale is tax free. The man's 'salary' was not defined anywhere or even fixed, and he basically bought whatever he wanted from the difference between what he got for a flat ( tax free), and what he re-invested in a new project.
I once did a little calculation, and worked out that I probably paid a higher percentage of taxes on all my sources of income, plus the VAT on services and products I buy, than the family did.
Another example, of many I can mention, was when he bought himself a new yacht. Of course, this yacht was also a 'charter company', with all the accounting involved in that. He could basically enjoy his hobby of sailing ( he went more often than the 3 weeks that was stipulated), whenever he wished, and it was all tax deductible. Fuel, maintenance, berthing fees, etc. were all balanced against the income generated ( mostly friends, and friends of friends), so that at the end of the year the 'company' only made a small profit. He also had no incentive to increase the profit, and he also didn't like the idea of total strangers using 'his' boat.
In Europe companies also don't pay VAT, and can deduct this ( German name for this is 'Vorsteuerabzug'). I wouldn't know if there is something similar over in the USA.
Would I have similar advantages if I bought a yacht? This yacht would be private, and I'd have to pay everything out of my own pocket (including 19% VAT). Unless, of course I buy a boat and let total strangers charter it, with all the risks and disadvantages of that.
Another example is the family's four cars. None of which was registered in the names of the family members who drove them, but rather on the different companies. As for 'jobs' created, his wife had a so-called 'Midijob' of 850 Euros per month ( no income tax payable at all for salaries up to 850 Euros). Not much, but is was basically a tax saving scheme, since the wife did hardly anything at the small ' company' of which she was supposed to be manager. Guess who got to do all the work :-)
And note, this is merely a fraction of 'the stories I could tell'...
Setting it up this way, the man didn't have a taxable personal income, the wife earned a salary which was too little to be taxed, and they enjoyed the benefits ( computers, smartphones, cars, yachts, travel expenses, etc.) of companies which hardly made a profit.
I don't consider any of these companies the family owned or set up as valid (real world) companies, as is often suggested in the ' trickle down economy' model.
Most of these 'companies' did not rent office space, employ own staff, engaged in sales or production of any kind. They did not contribute to society in any way by supplying a valuable service or product (i.e., the ' charter company' I mentioned).
Of course I had a job ( also one other employee), but that's hardly worth the mention with total assets in excess of 20 million Euros.
They were solely started up for the sake of saving taxes in a way the average man on the street could neither image, nor imitate.
1
-
pebutts Well, it looks as if both of our our former bosses have worked their way up.
My former boss became successful through a combination of killer instinct and just plain luck. When he was a young man in his twenties, he bet almost his entire inheritance on the hope that the ruined apartments and houses he bought in the former East Germany would increase in value over the years. And he was right.
By investing the income he had from the rents he collected, back into renovations of the new properties he had bought, he hardly paid taxes in the startup phase of his idea.
He worked extremely hard as a young man, so I think he deserved his wealth. He showed me pictures of himself when he started out refurbishing the worn out junk properties he had bought. He was too stingy to spend money on hotels, so in the evenings he'd camp out between machine tools and bags of cement.
Even the villa he lives in today was a bit of a ruin when he bought it, and he has been spending years making upgrades.
If you saw them today, you'd never guess where they were 25 years ago.
Of course, he took a risk with the 'easy' money he inherited.
Of course, if he didn't have an eye for the potential value the properties would have a decade or two later, he wouldn't be where he is today.
It's also not that he doesn't pay any tax at all. It's probably about the same as a family with a slightly less than average income. Most people would have little understanding for a tax system which allows such loopholes though, especially not young families who are struggling, and who realize they are taxed more than somebody with millions to his name.
The reason I posted my initial comment, was a notion I had that what he does on a relatively small scale, is also possible on a much larger scale, and people and companies who legally ' cheat' their governments out of millions, and hundreds of millions of escaped taxes by exploiting loopholes.
My former boss could certainly afford to pay ten or twenty thousand a year more, and thereby pay his just share. However, like you said, he doesn't have to, because the tax system provides these loopholes. So why should he?
I guess the reason most people don't approve of his behaviour, is because of a nagging feeling that 'somebody has to come up for the shortfall in taxes which are not paid by corporations and the rich folks, and that will be me'.
I'm all for a much simpler tax system, with more direct taxing like tolls, VAT or 'luxury' taxes on unhealthy or fast food.
There should be less loopholes and opportunities for tax returns. I don't think these create incentives for re-investment.
1
-
pebutts IMO, most people operate according to the principle of NIMBY. Of course, everybody wishes to gain benefits from living within a society, but it's primarily others who have to bear the burden, or suffer disadvantages.
That principle is as true for having a new high-voltage power line cutting across one's own backyard, as it is for paying taxes. I entirely agree that spendthrift politicians should be limited, simply by limiting the funds available to them, or by simply fixing or pre- allocating funds in a user fee system.
Therefore, I entirely agree with your statement that the tax system should be radically simplified, and that there should be a higher user fee based economy.
What about the military, or the police?
Defence and the protection of the civilian population takes about a third of the US budget, so how would one finance that without the collection of taxes?
A user fee based system won't work.
Do you also advocate cutting the funding of the US military or the police forces, in order to place limitations on spendthrift politicians here?
How do you personally feel about the fact that there are families struggling to make ends meet, paying a higher rate of taxes (seen as a percentage of their individual income), than certain privileged individuals?
These disadvantaged families who pay a higher share (from the perspective of their own financial situation) because they don't have any loopholes which they can exploit, therefore pay a higher personal burden of national defense or public safety than others, who also benefit, and who HAVE the means, but also use ( or misuse) loopholes to shun their fair share ( seen from the perspective of the own financial situation).
Of course, it is all legal -- well, mostly :-)
But, you should also have a personal opinion whether it is also correct.
The concepts behind the words 'legal' and 'correct/fair' are entirely different.
As far as I'm concerned, the debate should be about whether the tax system is fair from an individual standpoint (from the bottom, looking up). It's not about anybody violating laws, which it obviously isn't.
It should also not be about whether the taxes collected are sufficient, since ( as you correctly pointing out) those politicians 'at the top' will never get enough. It is therefore also not a debate from the top, looking down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sophie Dockx Yes, it seems as if humanity has been 'blessed' with imperfect systems, which are the result of our imperfect human nature.
Everything you describe, is an indirect result of our flaws as species, and the result of evolution and human nature.
This is true on the micro level (kids playing in a sandbox), as well as the macro level (nations and states).
The urge some have to be 'king of the mountain', leading to strife in the sandbox and wars in the real world....
The key to understanding history, is in understanding human nature, which is why historians with a background of philosophy make far more neutral observations that militarist historians.
The militarist might make more precise observations on the micro level (weapons, strategy or battles), but I'm with the philosophers when it comes to the big picture.
Interesting what you wrote about language and misunderstandings.
The same is true for cultural misunderstandings.
You probably heard about the meeting of the US ambassador just before Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
globalresearch.ca
Apparently he wanted to 'feel out' the US reaction to the invasion of Kuwait, and she gave such obscure answers (in the Arab culture) that Saddam interpreted it as a 'go ahead'.
Oh bother....
1
-
Oh boy. So you study human stupidity, history and are also objective — no wonder nobody likes you :-)
No, but seriously, I'm a big fan of Dunning-Kruger, and since hardly anybody on YT can follow that 'cognitive bias which low- ability individuals suffer from a feeling of superiority'-stuff, I usually refer them to the John Cleese version which is basically 'stupid people are too stupid to realize they are stupid'...
I'm also a big fan of causality.
It's brilliant.
Cause and effect is indifferent, doesn't bother with niceties such as who is subjectively or objectively 'right' or 'wrong', or even morality superior.
An action leading to a reaction is pure, sometimes cruel, and often unpopular — which is why most historians veer far away from issues which tend to be controversial.
Either that, or they start playing word games, spin doctoring or simply ignoring 'uncomfortable bits' of history, which would ruin the otherwise 'nice story' being told.
From what you write, I guess you'd make a great historian.....BUT you'll probably neither get any funding for a documentary, nor a big contract for a popular history book.
I have this theory that popular history is more about the constant repetition of a well-honed story, and anybody who pops up and wants to ruin this story, will simply get sorted out somewhere along the way.
If there is a formula for this, one could say:
Write what the masses want to hear = higher books sales = higher profit for the publisher and author = incentive to do it all again the next year....
1
-
Sophie Dockx Agreed on all points.
It is easy to forget many of these historical blunders, because many historians focus on the details too much. By concentrating too much on details, it becomes easy to loose sight of the big picture.
You probably know that the initial concept of the Schlieffen Plan was not only to push the best and largest part of the the German Army through Belgium towards Paris, but also at the same time, to draw (or lure) the French Army into Elsass (relatively unopposed).
The idea was to sacrifice land in the south, in order to gain the forces necessary to take Paris quickly. The momentum gained in the drive in the north, achieved by making sacrifices in the south....
It would have meant sacrificing Elsass, and maybe even the Saar and the regions towards Koblenz, but the outcome (taking Paris) would have made up for that.
IMO, it was mainly the meddling by German officers changing the original concept, which led to failure.
Of course, whether the original concept would have worked, is open to debate.
Maybe the French would have realized the trap, and broken off their Plan XVII also...
Nevertheless, the personal characters and quality of the main personalities play a large role....leadership is far more important than almost any other criteria deciding the outcome of battles.
1
-
Sophie Dockx To tell you the truth, most of my reading is waaay back. Most of it at least 10 years.
I vaguely remember reading about von Moltke changing the plan to accommodate the wishes of peers and more junior officers alike.
Apparently he wanted to make everybody happy, and gave in to the various demands.
Thanks for reminding me about the details.
Yes, there is definitely enough "blunder material" to make at least a dozen full-feature Monty Python movies :-)
As for Joffre's dislike of phones....
Imagine a 1970s or 1980s military leader turning down computers, GPS or electronic maps, based on own experiences, or fear of losing battles because the batteries go dead....
"We had a compass and paper maps, and what was good enough for me, is good enough for the boys today..."
A solid understanding of modern technology, and fully grasping the capabilities these offer, can make or break battles.
I would argue against the common held believe that certain technologies "win wars" though, since it is only the entire military, economic and political inferiority or superiority which decide wars.
A slightly better tank, or a slightly better aircraft can win a battle or two, but not decide a war.
I always ROTFL laughing when one of these 'History Channel docs' start of off by praising how the weapon or the technology introduced in the doc "won the war"...
Entertainment for kids :-)
1
-
Sophie Dockx Again, excellent analysis and historical understanding.
I had the 'honor' to be a part of that hierarchical structure called 'the military' for a short time, and quickly realized that it wasn't for me.
I quickly realized that the influence of both rank and class, outweighed 'good ol' common sense', and left as soon as I finished my tour of duty. Even in the lower officer ranks, the amount of ass kissing, back stabbing and intrigues was obvious and ridiculous.
So, I had 'been there, and done that', realized that it wasn't for me, and took my leave.
Yup, I've experienced 'Blackadder' and 'Monty Python' for long enough to realize that it didn't suite my character, and for long enough to realize that there were enough others who were willing to give it a go...rise in the ranks...become a 'success'...
The more authoritarian a system is, the more these mirror the mindset of those in charge, and those who had 'made it'.
Whether one is given such a privilege by birth, or have to fight for it from the bottom up, the outcome is principally what you describe.
Power games, pulling rank or class, dirty little deals, backstabbing, ass kissing...and all of that, to determine who will face off against 'the others' on 'the other side' who had gone through the same game themselves.
That is, the world we live in.
1
-
Despite the lack of accuracy, what makes the true difference between 'inaccurate but effective' or 'spectacular but ineffective', was the choice of target. In other words, the aiming point chosen by leadership (according to doctrine).
In this respect, the Oil Campaign, Transport Plan, and Big Week, were extremely effective, despite a lack of accuracy.
On the other hand, raids like Dresden, Pforzheim, Wurzburg or Kassel, might have been spectacular pyrotechnically, but ineffective. The bombs dropped on the city centers killed many civilians, but did little to end the war.
A massive mistake, which historians hate to point out.
The RAF and the USAAF should have fully coordinated their attacks, and focused on a few key industries at a time, bombing the same targets 'around the clock'....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course, it is mostly about "what I would do".
Of course, I would do the same, because I have nothing to fear.
None of us knows what happened before the video started rolling, so her allegations could be true...
I don't know...you don't know...
However, it is not a crime to get out of your car.
If one doesn't like this, then one should change the laws, to make it Illegal to get out of one's car when pulled over.
If something isn't illegal, it is legal. Stupid..sure. But not illegal.
Therefore, even if the police officer didn't do anything legally wrong, he technically still escalated the situation.
He could also have simply stayed cool, have thought "WTF, I get paid by the hour", and waited for backup. Then, they could still have demanded her licence.
It is therefore a classical case of "two wrongs not making a right".
Just stupid people...
1
-
Evelyn Jenkins I'm not simply going by the evidence on the video.
We don't know what happened before, so maybe you are right, and she's just a bitch.
Maybe her allegations are correct, and the cop behaved badly, and only changed his 'tune' once he knew the audio was on...
On the other hand, and I've made this point on other comments.
If you get pulled over by the police, you have basic rights. One of these rights is questioning the validity of HIS claim to be police (google 'fake cops' or similar).
You have this right, and I wouldn't support the suppression of this right, due to my own cognitive bias.
Cognitive biases have many origins.
We just have to make sure that we don't give up our rights, OR undermine them, due to our biases.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+pim1234 Look, it's easy, the VC also "started it", so we kicked ass...well, I think we kicked ass...never mind.
It's still easy, Saddam started it, and we really kicked ass...that is, until ISIS turned up and spoiled it all....ah, well....
Um...it's still easy. The Koreans also started it, and we REALLY kicked ass there....which is why we are still there...umm...
Never mind. F*ck all those stupid excuses.
The Nicaraguans started it, the Colombians started it, the Panamanians started it, the Congolese started it, the Somalis started it, ... EVERYBODY always starts it, just not us. And then we kick ass....right?
1
-
1
-
pim1234 Mostly correct, but not always. I would be careful who we in the West call "friends". They are often cronies, crooks, .opportunists or dictators. Saddan Hussein, and Al Quida were also "friends of the West"...well, for a while anyway....
Would you have wanted to die for them?
"Allied countries only start a war after being attacked first"
In 1898, the USA declared war on Spain. That war was based on a lie to the people (The explosion of the Maine).
In 1956, France, GB and Israel provoked and invaded the sovereign state of Egypt, after these nations did not wish to compromise on the income generated by the Suez Canal.
It almost triggered the 3rd WW and nuclear annihilation for the entire human race.
These are just a few examples.
I can give you a lot more.
As a general remark, nations in a superior position (economic, strategic, or financial) don't necessarily need to declare war or invade other countries.
All they need to do is heavily lean on, and apply pressure, and if that provokes a reaction, then it's always "look, they shot first".
As a general truth, these nations are also largely inhabited by apologists for the provocations, meaning that Western nations get away with their actions again and again.
1
-
+pim1234 That conclusion, my dear friend, is practically the definition of warmongering...
You might think that it's the right thing to do, but one day, a son, a daughter, or another loved one will pay the price, as hundreds of thousands already have.
They might not even die, maybe they'll only end up as blabbering nervous wrecks, or drug addicts, due to what they have witnessed.
Of course, in our own minds, we are all invincible...
Let's call it a night :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+WedgeMahalo OK, point taken. But they were Christians, fighting other Christians, and using exactly the same methods of violence (bombs, terror, rioting) because of a cause.
Whether one agrees with the cause or not, the methods remain the same.
A weaker side, which does not enjoy widespread support for its cause always resorts to acts of terrorism. That is already sufficient evidence to prove that today's radical Islamist don't enjoy popular support from the 1 billion Muslims in the world. Most Muslims see through the agenda of the Islamist, and therefore fight against it (Jordan, Iraq, etc.).
If they had popular support of all Muslims from all over the world, they wouldn't need to resort to terrorism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
WedgeMahalo I am observing closely. All I see is is power hungry crooks, who misuse a religion in order to try and create an entity which will be to their own benefit.
What I witness is that these people are not successful, because the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world consider the laws of the respective country to be more binding than laws which they are supposed to follow in the Quran.
Therefore, the overwhelming majority of Muslims don't kill homosexuals, stone women or condone public beheadings due to crimes against Allah.
Furthermore, the notion that 'the Muslims' form some sort of international entity is wrong. They are as divided as the followers of all other religions. That is also reason why Muslims in China or Indonesia, and other progressive states, don't read the Quran the same same way as a backward mountain tribesmen in Yemen or Afghanistan.
The Quran itself is not the problem, but the various political problems and poverty, which makes it easy for pied pipers to lure the disillusioned.
It's not the religion. It never is.
It's people, who misuse religion for their own ulterior motives.
Insulting more than a billion people because some use their religion to carry out crimes and to further their own selfish political agendas, is not going to solve any problems.
1
-
1
-
WedgeMahalo I'm an atheist, so I'm not a fan of any religion. These are stone age beliefs which somehow cling to our societies through a mixture of brainwashing and ignorance.
The Old Testament of the Christian faith, therefore also the basis of Judaism, contains similar stone age laws and ' sets of instructions' to the believers.
Only difference is that we in the west have progressed, through a series of education and knowledge, so that (almost) nobody still follows the Bible word for word.
That is not so for the radical Islamist.
They are criminal pied pipers, who misuse the fact that a lot of people in the areas where there are a lot of Muslims, are also poor and uneducated. They mislead these masses into thinking their 'holy book' must be read literally.
When Muslims come to western Europe, they (mostly, not always) adapt to their host countries and adapt the way they read the Quran.
A majority of Muslims who live in the west, or in relatively rich progressive and democratic countries don't practice or condone the things we criticize.
It should be a higher percentage, but that will increase further as income levels rise, education increases, and Muslims are confronted by more liberal societies.
It's not the religion which is bad, but the criminals and power mongers who misuse it to gather the 'sheep' they need for their political agendas.
Judging ( note here, JUDGING not criticizing) a billion people for their religion, is not correct and no answer.
Those Muslims who want change, need our support, not our ridicule.
What is your solution to this 'problem' you have defined as a religion?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** I have to disagree in parts. I also agree in parts. The problem with religion is that it offers a way out of moral dilemmas.
An example.
If soldiers kill children, for example by carpet bombing or nuking, EVEN if it turns out to be of questionable effect, how often do we see deeply religious people making excuses, by looking for a suitable passage in their holy books?
How often does one see 'reap what you sow', as explanation for some of the most horrible crimes in history?
I wouldn't want a constitution based on religious principles, which is also good why we have secular government.
As long as moral values are subject to dogma, I can't follow that logic. With the founding fathers, the USA was simply lucky to have had leaders NOT influenced by dogma, even though that didn't benefit Native Americans and blacks much at the time...but that is a different debate :-)
Religion doesn't make a person better, if that person's character is already deeply infected by negative human characteristics (yes, pointed out in the Bible, and ALL the holy books all over the world).
It can certainly make a good person better, but it will hardly ever make a bad person good...
As gun advocates say...it's not the guns, it's the people.
So I say...it's not the religion, it's what people DO with it.
Are you saying that Bhutan is such a bad place? Note, there is no Christianity here, which could be interpreted as the basis of this peaceful country, and the people who live there....
My rhetorical example of Bhutan proves that people achieve similar societies, if they adhere to similar moral principles.
1
-
War is simply a question of what the elites consider worthwhile to protect their vested interests.
'World wars', are opposition to other nation's elites thinking likewise...
The 'poor people' don't play a role, otherwise GB would never have started so many wars and invasions resulting in endless suffering and death herself.
Belgium was a pretext.
There was no defense treaty, and if the elites had wanted to stay out, or even saw it as more opportune for their vested interests to join Germany, they would have simply changed their propaganda tune....
Then, we would have heard all about what terrible people 'the Belge gorilla' were. How they murdered 10,000,000 innocents in the Congo. How they brutally chopped the hands of kids, simply because they didn't manage to gather enough latex to make rubber...
Yup...those evil 'Belges' certainly 'deserved what they got', and were simply 'reaping the whirlwind of what they had sown'.
Sure...Karma is a bitch and all that...
Beware, of the propaganda tales of our elites...WMD, Gulf of Tonkin, blah, blah, blah......
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
IMO, one of the gravest outcomes of the Armistice in 1918 and a fact seldom mentioned, was the result of the renunciation of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk for the peoples of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.
The armistice demanded the immediate removal of German (also Turkish and A-H) forces, and the resulting power vacuum was quickly exploited by the Reds, who rolled over Ukraine, Poland and the Caucasus region, whose population had only just plucked up the courage to declare their independence.
The second clause of the Armistice of 1918 (concerning the Eastern front) was a short-sighted vindictive and self centered decision, especially since the Russian invasion of Finland in 1918 had already shown what the Reds were capable of, and what they thought about independence and freedom of others.
Allied leaders completely underestimated the Reds, and millions of people subsequently suffered the loss of their lives, health and property.
Even worse, the returning German troops subsequently roamed the streets of Berlin, or signed up for private militia, a serious risk to the shaky new democratic Weimar Republic.
My conclusion?
It would have been better for the peoples of these areas if the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk had remained intact, since it legally bound Russia (or rather the SU), to peace in these areas.
The Allies should have used their victory in the west, to ease some of the harsher conditions, without altering the main conditions, at least until the newly formed independent nations had organized and consolidated their own nations into self-supporting (and defensible) states.
Hindsight?
Certainly, but there isn't much in history which isn't....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From 44:00 mins on wards the naval arms race between GB and Germany.
Naval experts won't argue the fact that German ships were essentially short-ranged North and Baltic Sea ships.
The German High Seas Fleet was therefore essentially a risk fleet.
A "risk fleet" doesn't have to be bigger than a rival (in this case the HSF vs.the RN).
It also doesn't have to operate world-wide (which is the reason Germany never had naval bases matching the military and industrial capacity or recreational value of Singapore, Bombay, Malta, Gibraltar, Sydney, Aden, Alexandria, Hong Kong, and DOZENS of others)
The scope, expanse and capabilities of British overseas bases (for example docks, repair facilities, re-supply, etc.) largely exceeded anything the German Empire had abroad.
The only German bases capable of handling, repairing and replenishing a large number of ships were the German Navy's "Marinewerfen" (Naval Yards) at Kiel, Wilhelmshafen and Danzig.
My conclusion.
A risk fleet doesn't have to operate world-wide.
The rise of the German threat was (partly) a British propaganda tool, aimed at raising awareness to a potential threat to GB. The aim was to gain the support and funds (as always in democracies) to counter the the German expansion by building MORE ships in every category in which the Germans chose to challenge GB's superiority in numbers.
The "world wide threat" to GB was made up.
How could Germany achieve in a few years, what took GB 300 years to achieve? (in other words, create the world-wide bases needed to successfully operate a large number of ships)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
khai do Sorry about assuming you were from Thailand, honest mistake :-)
Thank you for clarifying the importance of 'saving face' in the Asian culture.
IMO, and bearing in mind that it was the Japanese who surrendered (and not the popular misconception that the bombs MADE the Japanese surrender), and therefore the fact that Japanese leaders could not simply surrender without a complete loss of face.
One can therefore almost say that those Japanese leaders favoring the unconditional surrender, were relieved that they could now blame 'a terrible new weapon' for their own failures, thereby saving face.
Therefore we can conclude that it was the fact THAT the bombs were used, and not WHERE they were used which is the defining concept.
In other words, it did not really matter where the bombs were dropped, it would have given Japanese leaders the 'face saving' they needed to end the war.
My personal conclusion?
The bombs could also have been dropped on a military target, for example the Yokusuka Naval Arsenal across the bay from Tokyo.
The effect, and therefore the result (Japanese surrender) would have been the same....
1
-
1
-
1
-
Flam1ngicecream Those who favor war always go for the pretext that is most likely to create a strong emotional response.
People who feel threatened, or feel as if they had been attacked first, are susceptible to being mislead by a mixture of facts, truths, and lies.
The 'WMD storey' is an example of this. Other prominent examples are ' The Gulf of Tonkin Incident' (a false flag to justify Vietnam), and the 'Gleiwitz Incident' (false flag by Nazi Germany as justification to invade Poland).
People who feel attacked or threatened, make perfect soldiers....
Iraq had chemical weapons of course, but these were no danger to neighbors or the rest of the planet. The elaborate 'evidence' of mobile chemical factories on trucks, or of hidden nuclear labs, were all lies though, as later admitted by paid informants.
The available facts were 'spun' (spin doctors) out of all proportions because those who planned for war knew that they needed more than simply chemical weapons to rouse public support.
Other 'truths' were simply downright lies, for example that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 (as believed by around 3/4 of Americans after an elaborate media campaign).
Those responsible for the mess that is now the ME, also know they will get away with it, and enjoy the rest of their lives in luxury, some of this luxury pay-offs from the war.
Everything you witness on the news today, from ISIS, to terror in Paris, sexual attacks in Cologne, the endless streams of refugees into Europe,....all started with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the botched up peace.
Now that the shit has hit the fan, the 2 countries most responsible ( USA and GB), want to lean back and say 'we don't want all those refugees'.
How perverted is that?
Those responsible know that the USA and GB has been kind to its warmongers and war criminals.
A largely apologetic and complacent society, living according to the rules of indifference and ignorance (aka 'I dunno and I don't care').
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wesley Wright I gladly, and voluntarily pay more for my food, since I can afford it. It's called the 'fair trade' principle, and the food sold like this guarantees that the higher price I pay for the food I buy actually reaches the farmer or farm workers, and doesn't end up making a few traders and big land owners rich at the expense of others.
However, on the other hand I also realize that not everybody can afford to do this. We don't have kids, and our house is paid, so we don't pay rent.
Therefore I'm not preaching from a privileged position.
I realize there is a need for cheap fresh healthy, and locally produced food, and that one way to achieve this is by low wages.
I'm willing to compromise on some of my principles, as long as a certain measure of humanity (for example free health care and education) is made available to these poor, paid for by the taxes of people like me, who can also afford it.
I'm not being hypocritical at all.
I gladly pay my taxes, so that indirectly others who contribute to our society benefit, and give something back (for example, by making fresh fruit more affordable).
I'm not rich.
In fact, I earn below average wages. I'm just in the lucky position of having paid off my debts, and can now give something back to the society in which I live.
What's wrong with that?
1
-
Wesley Wright First we have to clarify a misunderstanding.
I'm not 'for illegal immigration'. I think we are basically on the same position.
I'm for legalizing illegal immigrants who live in the US today, and making it easier for them to achieve legal status.
Immigration is actually dropping.
The idea that 'more and more are pouring in' is actually incorrect. The figure has actually dropped since the peak around five years ago, and has now stabilized at around 11 million ( down from 12 million at the peak).
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/19/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/
My position is that all western nations should make legal immigration easier, and integrate new arrivals asap, so that they can start paying for their own health insurance, education for their kids, etc., and not rely on the government or NGOs.
The first step is to make it easier to become legal.
Of course, anybody guilty of breaking any serious laws, should never gain legal status, but that should be a case by case decision.
The best way to achieve this would be that if an illegal alien can provide 3 references of good character by an accepted member of society (say, a church or charity organisation), has a job which can support him/herself, then he/she should be granted a green card.
Why complicate matters, and make it so expensive, by trying to deport them or otherwise force them out? Bear in mind that any effort to 'send them back' (11 million people,most of them working somewhere), would have repercussions for all of us, or which could indirectly cost you too (for example food prices going up).
1
-
Wesley Wright I think we can generally agree on many points.
What I notice though is that some of the points you make, are based on misconceptions.
For example you state that you think that if 'most of the illegals leave, then that would automatically mean that Americans would find jobs'.
That is not correct, since many Americans who are unemployed, would never do the kind of work some of these immigrants are doing.
A 55-year old unemployed banker, for example, would never go back to picking oranges in California.
http://www.tolerance.org/immigration-myths
Of course, western nations can NEVER take up every single poor person in the world.
That is why I'm doing my tiny little bit in making life more livable in the places they come from.
Even if every American who can somehow afford it, use the fair trade system to buy coffee, sugar, and other typical '3-rd world' imports, life could be much better in these places (for example Central America), and people won't want to leave.
I feel good when I drink my fair trade coffee, put in fair trade sugar, and add locally produced milk from a nearby dairy farmer.
It costs me a few cents per cup more, but I know that pays for medical aid and education in Nicaragua, Brasil, India or Cambodia.
As for the best course of action for those already here, we might have to agree to disagree :-)
I don't think their impact is that great, that the richest nations on earth cannot bear the burden (please also read the article about typical misconceptions about 'freebies' for example).
Most of the misconceptions are not even true, so I think legalizing illegals already here, while at the same time making future illegal immigration less attractive is the long-term plan with the most chances of success.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
lesbian9541 So what percentage of Germans were actually Nazis? Was that ever objectively measured?
ALL humans who view their own selfish interests over human rights of others, are criminals.
Therefore, Mengele was no better and no worse than Cutler, the doctor who knowingly infected thousands of Guatemalans in human experiments. Yet, Mengele is a well-known criminal, yet the crimes of Cutler were covered up for 70 years. What system allows that?
http://gizmodo.com/the-u-s-doctor-who-infected-1-300-guatemalan-patients-1696095744
In my opinion, the citizens of nations should do something about the crimes committed in their names, and see to it that these criminals are brought to justice.
If not, the idea that ' crime pays' will persist, because of the fact that 'my nation is a nation of finger pointers and apologists'...
Should Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others be trailed like the Nazis at Nuremberg?
Should the mass murderers of Mai Lei be trailed and locked away?
Do you think Americans have the moral obligation to do something about the criminals in their own ranks?
1
-
+lesbian9541 We have absolute no differences where it comes to the crimes of Nazis, and their 'useful idiots', meaning those who collaborated for personal profit.
Following the power or the money is a very common trait which is inherent in all animals and many human beings, not only Germans. Sucking up to power is very common in both the animal and human world.
The people who collaborated with the Nazis came from all over the occupied territories, and from all walks of life. At the bottom of this pile of human shit, there was the farmer, who got more land by denouncing his Jewish neighbor, and at the top there were the doctors and businessmen who collaborated because it meant being able to experiment on human beings ( scientists), or higher profit for a company (business people).
This still happens ALL over the world.
It is not a specific 'German trait' as many are lead to believe by documentaries or books.
'Following the money', or 'sucking up to power' is what leads to the kind of crimes you pointed out.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not making excuses for criminals, or even trying to create a moral equivalence.
I'm pointing out the dangers of not drawing the correct conclusions.
IMO, the correct conclusion is to denounce and follow up EVERY war crime or crime against humanity, even those done by our own soldiers and the leaders who ordered, covered up, or condoned theses crimes.
If not, our kids and their kids will still be here in a hundred years, carrying out exactly the same debate we are carrying out now...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Ralph Bernhard Following that logic, and addressing the whiny 'What else could we have done?'- rhetoric.
The Volkswagen factory in Wolfsburg.
During WW2, the two main variants of the Volkswagen, the Kuebelwagen and the Schwimmwagen were just what the German Army needed. They were simple, cheap, and didn't use much fuel (a vital factor for oil deprived Nazi Germany), or raw materials such as high grade steel.
They were used in the same functions as the famous US Jeep -- general purpose and often vital second line work such as recce, liaison, repair and maintenance troops for the tanks, carrying messages, and as transport for the lower forward echelons of command.
In Africa, German soldiers called it "Deutsches Kamel" (German Camel), because it was perfect for desert warfare. Again, especially because it used little fuel (difficult to transport over the Med), and had an air-cooled engine.
With around 50,000 and 15,000 built of the two versions, they were also the main vehicles in this category, and invaluable to the German side. Furthermore, the factory was also used to produce mines and torpedoes for submarines, which until mid-1943 were sinking British merchantmen by the scores.
One would think that with such potent reasons, the factory would be near the top of the list of likely targets for the bomber boys at Bomber Command.
As a plus point, the Volkswagen factory lay far away from any of the formidable centers of the German air defense network, and along the easy to locate Mittellandkanal (waterway).
Conclusion? Destroying this factory would have much simpler than taking on more formidable targets, such as big city centers.
Assertion? Destroying this factory would have played a vital role in undermining the fighting potential and mobility of the German armed forces.
Volkswagen was never attacked in force, and only minor attempts were directed at this exposed factory. It survived the war with only minor damage. Production continued until almost the end of the war, because other targets had a higher priority.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** From late 1941, the RAF changed their tactics.
Up to that point in time, basically every aircraft was an independent unit, which navigated to the target, and aimed at the target specified in the orders (if the target was found and if it could be seen, which was rare).
Those were bad tactics, since it basically meant that accuracy depended on the skill of the crew. Often, later arrivals simply bombed where they saw fires, assuming that that was the target.
However, if an inexperienced crew had been first on the spot, you can imagine that most aircraft would simply bomb the wrong place, a burning barn, a little village, a decoy, etc.
From late-1941, the RAF changed their tactics. From that point in time, the best and most experienced crews were chosen as 'pathfinders', to mark the target. The rest of the rookies, average blokes, and less experienced wouldn't have to bother with navigation and target selection anymore, and simply had to bomb the chosen target area (marked by special marker bombs). The most bombers simply flew along in a 'bomber stream', and there was less chance of error.
Therefore, I doubt whether individual choice played any role. The crews simply bombed what had been 'marked'. They were later also directed by special 'master bombers', which avoided the target area from 'straying'. They therefore had very little individual choice, and the whole process was very routine.
Bombing accuracy mainly depended on the weather and visibility in the target area. If you've ever been to Northern Europe, you'd know that the weather is pretty crappy most of the time (statistically, around 70-80% of the time it's various degrees of 'crappy')
1
-
1
-
1
-
benjo benthepharmer That is correct. History is littered with examples of plunder, murder, genocide and misconduct.
IMO, however, we should refrain from making excuses for historical wrongs, because that leads to creating a precedent for current or future behaviour.
For example, your use of the words 'peril the nation was in'.
That might have been true in 1940/41, but certainly not by 1943/44.
Does a perilous situation by itself, justify a war crime?
Even the often repeated rhetorik of 'they should have simply surrendered' is flawed.
On the one hand we, quite correctly, conclude that the Nazis were (and their remnants still are) the biggest scum of the earth, yet...we then strangely assume that they should have surrendered because so many people were dying?
That's not exactly logical....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AU HTWO O Now, this is always the point where "debates" turn interesting. It's the stage of misinterpretation, putting words into the other sides mouth, assumptions about the other mindset, and the prelude to the final stage (name calling, insults, etc)
In case that is your objective, I'm not interested. Here is what I mean.
You wrote "Yea the way we supplied the communists during the second world war, did Truman support their cause?"
Where did I write that western nations supported CAUSES?
My point is that western nations have no scruples in supporting and UPHOLDING the worst terror regimes the world has ever seen, and then hypocritically still claim the moral high ground.
"We did not bring about the revolution in Iran it was co opted by the Ayatollah and his thugs read a book dude"
The books I read start LONG before the Ayatollah. Western nations were crucial in shaping the regime of the corrupt puppet called "Shah", who infuriated his own people to such a degree that a guy like the Ayatollah seemed like a good idea. Of course, it turned out they were wrong, but which PREVIOUS meddling brought about the Shah, kept him in power and therefore supported him?
My suggestion.
Stop meddling, and let the people who live in other places shape their own way of life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kai Ingebrigtsen I'm talking about gun nuts, not sane law abiding citizens.
So, are you saying that Breivik would not have been able to find other crazy people to team up with?
With over 500,000,000 people in Europe, not even 2 potential nutcases?
With that, you have practically defeated your own argument, which that each adult should be armed to fight criminals and freaks....what for, if most people are decent.
Well, that is what I've been telling you all along.
There is no need to arm ourselves, since most people are decent :-)
Increased gun ownership will simply increase the risk of accidents...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kai Ingebrigtsen I'm almost 50 years old. I have never been attacked by a crazy person with a knife.
None of my family and friends has ever been attacked by a crazy person.
None of my neighbors, colleagues at work, or anybody else I know has ever been attacked, raped by strangers, burgled, stolen from or 'had genitals cut off with dull blades'....
You are obviously paranoid, and easily manipulated into thinking that the statistically provable isolated cases of crime you read about and see on TV are actually a wide-spread phenomena, and that the we therefore ALL have to carry guns around to make the world a better place....ROTFL....
Tell me Kai, how often do you get robbed, mugged or molested every week to justify your hopelessly exaggerated paranoia?
Bear in mind, that it not me who wants a stupid law imposed on people, which would lead to a majority of citizen to become criminals....
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pavel Uhm....400 years ago?
Nobody from those days is still alive.
Isn't one human lifetime a better measure?
I'd say the mistakes were made in 1919, irrelevant of what happened 200, 300, or 500 years before that.
In 1919, German speakers (ex-A-H citizens) who wanted to be together, expressed by a wish, and were denied to do so at gunpoint by Czechs (also ex-A-H citizens).
In 1938, that decision not to grant these people their wish, came back to haunt the entire world. There was violence, and war.
That would not have been the case if the German speakers and Czech speakers of the Austrian Empire had been allowed to reach a mutually acceptable border, without foreign meddling...
1
-
1
-
Pavel Czechoslovakia has and had every right to exist.
Free men and women with basic human rights have every right to live according to own wishes and culture.
Fine by me.
The problem I pointed out with how the borders were decided on at Versailles.
It was drawn in on the map, according to the wishes of rulers in London and Paris, and nobody asked the people who actually lived on the land, and owned the property, had friends, family or businesses....
Personally, I find it sad that people are always divided by the arrogant wishes of politicians, the money elite, and other leaders, often with nationalistic motivations.
Nationalistic leaders who divided, rather than liberal ideals, which would have united is what messed things up.
The unity you described, running along mutually accepted borders, could have also been formed in 1919, if the idea of 'self determination' had been honored.
Here is a small overview of the events of 1919, taken from Wiki.
I know, that this is merely a very simple and short explanation, but it is accurate as far as I can see.
-- After the Czechoslovak Republic (ČSR) was proclaimed on 28 October 1918, the German Bohemians, claiming the right to self-determination according to the 10th of President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, demanded that their homeland areas remain with the Austrian State, which by then had been reduced to the Republic of German Austria. The German Bohemians relied on peaceful opposition to the occupation of their homeland by the Czech military, a process that started on 31 October 1918 and was completed on 28 January 1919. Fighting took place sporadically, resulting in the deaths of a few dozen Germans and Czechs.
On 4 March 1919, almost the entire ethnic German population peacefully demonstrated for their right to self-determination. These demonstrations were accompanied by a one-day general strike. The German Social Democratic Workers Party in the Czechoslovak Republic, which was the largest party at the time, was responsible for the demonstration initiative, but it was also supported by other bourgeois German parties. These mass demonstrations were put down by the Czech military, involving 54 deaths and 84 wounded.[26]
The Treaty of St Germain of 10 September 1919 made clear that German Bohemia would not become part of the new Austrian republic. Instead, it would become part of Czechoslovakia. This new Czechoslovak state regarded ethnic Germans as an ethnic minority. Nevertheless, some 90 percent lived in territories in which they represented 90 percent or more of the population. --
(end of Wiki article)
The German speaking part of Bohemia (90-95% German speakers), wished to join Austria, but were forced into joining Czechoslovakia at gunpoint.
I'm not sure whether this part of history made it to your history lessons in school, but this is what happened.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't have a personal interest in how these events unfolded, because I'm South African.
I'm therefore just a neutral observer, and I observe that this division of people in 1919, gave Hitler the tool he needed to fire up nationalistic sentiment in 1938.
That goes to show that if our leaders don't follow the rules of higher moral values, then the outcome could be crisis and war.
This is really the only point I wish to make.
I have no personal involvement in the divisions of Austria after WW1.
I merely conclude that not asking the people was the wrong thing to do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anthony Brown Hello Anthony
You are absolutely correct in that many of the RAF night raids were a waste of resources. Bombing Berlin, or Nürmberg, with enormous losses, cannot be justified if one looks at the results achieved.
I have several objections to Beevor's speech, and I'll repeat them here. I'd like to hear your ideas.
Most of Beevor's comments are actually already countered in the final "questions" section of this debate, so maybe we can go into a few points more in depth.
At 38:53 mins "...easy to forget this when applying retrospective judgement from a position of safety, long after the event..."
We are living in the year 2015. When else am I supposed to judge historical events, and reach a conclusion whether they were right or wrong? Many people who lived at the time concluded that "revenge bombing" was entirely beside the point (see the parliamentary debates), but their opinions were circumvented, or they were simply lied to (Portal lied to the British parliament, stating that "there are no specific orders to kill German civilians")
39:09 "...Guernica..." was in Spain, which wasn't even a British Ally. Using that as an excuse to kill German civilians in Dresden, is like saying that Coventry was the 'German revenge' for British terror bombing attacks on tribal villages in Iraq in the early 1920's.
Here is my point. Linking historical events which have absolutely nothing to do with each other is a typical propaganda trick to foster a "they deserve it"- attitude..
39:00 "...Warsaw..." was in Poland. Poles meant absolutely nothing to the British leadership. The same Poles were later signed away to the yoke of communist oppression, on the back of an envelope. Their fate wasn't even worth the few pence a clean sheet of paper would have cost Churchill. Warsaw is is a convenient EXCUSE, not a REASON.
39:20 "...Minsk, Smolensk..." were in Russia. So, according to Beevor, British pilots were sent to their deaths, bombing German civilians, to revenge Russian civilians? The leaders of the SU crying foul did not object when their "hero" leader ( referred to as "Uncle Joe" according to the then current British and US WW2 propaganda) sent fuel and ores to Germany from 1939 to 1941 to build bombs and fuel the German bombers heading for Coventry. That's not logical.
More EXCUSES, and not REASONS.
I have highlighted the words "reasons" and "excuses" to point out that there is a difference. Reason is something which existed before an event, while an excuse is something made up afterwards, in a way of justification. I always analyze every comment according to this distinction.
None of the points Beevor makes are "reasons".
The only reason that ever existed, and why it was decided to flatten German city centers was "let's see if this works", and historians should just admit this, and stop making retrospective excuses.
As always, looking forward to your reply.
I know, and appreciate, that there are other ways of looking at things.
1
-
Anthony Brown I agree that these debates are an excellent source of information.
Actually, I don't think Beevor's speech has much to be criticized (apart from the two or three things I mentioned). His POV is a good middle road between two extremes. For example, he made a good point when he said that the German population was (by and large) hostages of Hitler's aggressive politics. "Hostages" means that the majority of Germans were neither guilty nor innocent, but simply stuck in a country which was at war, and unable to do anything about it.
It is very easy today to state something like "well, they should have revolted" or "why didn't they kill Hitler", etc. However this completely ignores the facts.
a) In view of Nazi propaganda, what did the simple "man on the street" know?
b) even if some HAD recognized that they were being lied to, how should they have revolted, or killed Hitler?
The problem I have with books is that historians can be very selective in which facts they choose to focus on, and how to weigh (or completely ignore) other facts.
In a debate like this, a historian has to subject his statements and theories to the scrutiny of other historians, who might not agree with him.
I even have a vague notion (although I can't prove this) that Churchill instinctively felt that it was the wrong thing to do. (expressed by the now famous memo to Harris, and his refusal to grant Bomber Command a Battle Star after the war was over).
Harris interpreted the memo in the way that Churchill was trying to wiggle his way out of post-war criticism they would surely face in a a modern democracy.
You are correct that Churchill should have fired him long before that time. In the build up to D-Day, Bomber Command was achieving excellent results on valid targets, but Harris refused to admit that his Area Bombing had not achieved the effects hoped for in 1942, and should have been revised in mid-1944.
Harris resisted the urging of more advanced views to finally place all effort on taking out the last German factories, power plants, yards. and other targets (which had been impossible to hit in late 1941/early 1942), but certainly within the capabilities of experienced crews to destroy in 1944 and 1945.
As far as hindsight is concerned.
In many cases the word "hindsight" is just an excuse for the "lack of foresight".
In the case of adhering to the Area Bombing policy, long after it had been proven that it was not going to make Hitler and the Nazis surrender, and not going to lead to a revolution, was a mistake. In my opinion, this mistake was due to a lack of foresight.
Again, I'll refer to Churchill's memo after Dresden, in which he clearly stated that he felt it was the wrong policy to come into the possession of an utterly destroyed central Europe, ripe for take over by communism, if the policy of bombing civilians was not changed.
Churchill clearly saw the coming Cold War long before others, but lacked the foresight to change the decisions once undertaken (Febr 1942) under different circumstances.
By late 1944, after the success of D-Day, and Operation Bagration, there just no way that Germany could have still won.
My objections to bombing civilians are both moral and (I believe) objective. With objective, I mean that an objective analysis makes it clear that bombing civilians backfires and achieves the exact opposite as desired.
1
-
Anthony Brown Great conclusion.
I'll keep a look out for Antony Beevor's books, but at the moment I live in Germany, and we are getting ready to move to Spain.
At the moment we are trying to get rid of things, rather than buy more stuff :-)
As I said before, I think Beevor's views are more moderate, and well thought out, in comparison to say Patrick Bishop, who makes some pretty ridiculous, but populist statements and historical connections.
I have listed a few here on this site, going back about 8 months.
I would like to hear your opinions on those, if you can spare the time.
It's always much more fun to have a civil exchange of ideas with a well-informed person, rather than the typical teenage ranting which seems to be so typical here on YT :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At 17:05 mins
The lame old "Brest-Litovsk" argument, which is total BS.
Quite simple. Russia's negotiators turned down the initial German terms, leading to the resuming of action, after which the remaining Russian forces were thoroughly thrashed.
Therefore, the Russians (or rather the new leaders, the Soviets) were in no position to argue.
Any chance of the same thing happening in the west?
Any chance that the German armies would thoroughly thrash the combined British, French, US and Belgian armies, in order to dictate their terms?
Whatever some Germans wanted (or rather dreamed about), is completely irrelevant, since there was no way that the Allies on the western front would ever have been so completely thrashed that they would needed to accept terms dictated to them.
Simple as that.....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Michael Moore What you are explaining is cause an effect. NOT the result of some 'liberal agenda'.
People started DEMANDING change to fit into the standards of modern life.
Old people wanted medical insurance, leading to Medicaid. It is not 'socialism', the result of somebody's agenda.
And that industries die out as a result of change ELSEWHERE in the world, is plain and simple economics. Certain production dying out due to the changing times is NORMAL, not the result of some imaginary agenda.
Honestly, do you think the makers of horse wagons COMPLAINED when the car turned up, and started ruining their businesses?
Was Henry Ford a 'liberal demon with an agenda', because he wanted to build the car, putting thousands of buggy makers out of business?
And cheap imports?
LOL, blame the greedy bastards who want more for themselves by exploitation of ALL people. For example the Banana Wars, fought so that Americans could eat cheap bananas.
I don't remember too many Americans protesting your military marching into other countries, oppressing the rights of people here, because of your big business heros' endless greed.
Cause and effect.
That is what you should study.
Your politicians in bed with big business.
THAT is the root cause of everything you whine about.....
1
-
1
-
Michael Moore Yes, of course it was like that. When Christianity appeared, a new generation of dribbling power mongers appeared, recognised the chance to overthrow an old existing order ('knowledge' being power to rule over ignorance, and all that), and to eclipse that with a new order (cough, cough, with THEM on charge of course).
Follow that up with a nice little purge (aka Inquisition), and all's fine.
No more 'little problems'.
Good thing for you that you see how the world works :-)
But I don't see anything similar around today.
Today, there are too many power-mongers scrambling for the top, with too many agendas, trying to be king of the mountain. In doing so, they are battling each other, meaning that the top remains neatly empty.
There are no more 'purges', like in the good ol' days :-)
1
-
1
-
Michael Moore So you mean, God got kinda lazy, ran out of ideas, and simply used one of the designs he had played around with the week before -- and said: 'OK, I'll put a bit more brain on this one, stretch it a bit, take off the hair, but make it reeeeeelly slow so the lions can catch it, and reeeeal bumbly so it can't climb trees, and then go back to the Tele to see if it survives'?
Jeez, looks like the big guy in the sky has some twisted sense of humor :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Michael Moore Where does Jesus tell you to kill the enemy's children?
You were the one commenting on the debate here, and the debate IS about moral ethics in warfare, especially the terror bombing of 'enemy' civilians.
So, please.
Over to you.
Look in your Bible, and tell me were JESUS, not God, tells you to kill children?
Note here, Jesus CHRIST(IAN, cough, cough) is your philosopher, not mine....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Michael Moore Nope, we are discussing moral values.
If you really studied history and understand, then you will see that WW2 was ENTIRELY avoidable.
It was the greed, and lack of empathy of the mostly Christian rulers of the world which messed the world up, over and over and over again...
Starting with all those 'Christian' rulers who created the conditions which led to WW1, and then also started WW1 for their own selfish and self-centered wishes.
Then, all those billionaire "Christians" couldn't keep their profit-minded greedy hands out of turning even the most senseless human suffering into a nice little sum on the bank account.....
Then, losing the peace at Versailles.
Yup, that includes your racist and arrogant 'Big Three' screwing over a Japanese ally, and treating them like outcasts....
But yeeeeees.
Of course....those were the days..."people were like that" and " that was what it was like those days", so what can we do about it? Of coooourse, we can't change history....
Uhm...learn a lesson?
Well, apparently nothing was learned, because being stuck in old ways, and teaching fake and one sided history, is STILL the way to go....
So, you wanna hear the rest about how a little strife in SE Asia turned into death for good ol' American boys?
Won't be the first time those Frenchie ambitions for Vietnam caused farmer boys from Kansas to come home in a star-spangled coffin, or somewhat alive....minus an arm....or a leg....or a soul....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Asking the wrong questions on a limited scope and timeline will not reveal the divide-and-rule technique.
The empire set off on the "G-G Line" from Germany to Greece, during the First Cold War after declaring war ("cold" war/1947).
It advanced to the "B-B Line" from the Baltics to the Black Sea (see footnote) after the "peace" was declared to the plebs after the 1990s, and a bright new future pwomised to all the children of history, believers...
How long do you think it will take for the empire, wriggling and writhing about ("divide-and-rule"), hopping over here and there ("pivoting") before they reach the "A-A Line"?
‐-----------
The "B-B Line".
When people start thinking in terms of dichotomies like winning/losing, left/right wing, us/them, right/wrong, unity/division, they are already all "losers."
Think in terms of a desirable outcome. If not, lose.
Outsiders fabricate the "crescent of crises" around your heartland.
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
If outsiders come from outside and start drawing lines on the map, through your homelands without asking the people who live there.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. They allow outsiders to play the cards FOR them.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS. Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willhovell9019 Re. WW1 it wasn't as much "German militarism" as "the alliance system" which lead to the knee-jerk reaction of the implementation of the Schlieffen Plan.
The so-called "Schlieffen Plan" was a contingency plan which was devised, and which cristalized out of several pre-war war games re. potential "what ifs" faced by Germany and her alliance partner Austria-Hungary.
It would be "triggered", in case certain criteria are met. A fact which is not clear if Wilhelm truly understood.
Note, it came about as a result (causal effect) of other nations' leaders decisions.
That is how "causality" works.
At first, devised in 1905, after it became clear that 1) France and Russia could not be convinced to give up on their policy of encirclement (see the failure of the Treaty of Bjorko), nor coerced into abondoning their alliances aimed at Berlin/Germany/Triple Alliance (see the Agadir crises).
The final step towards it becoming the only German war contingency plan, was in 1913, when it became clear that London would also not abandon its position of being the "balancer of powers/decider of wars" on the continent (after The Haldane mission), Attempts by Berlin to achieve this, were basically given up, and faced with the situation of "three enemies in war, right or wrong", all other contingency plans were shelved.
Re. the act of "encircling others", often brushed off as "nonsense", and "snowflake outrage", I suggest referring to our beloved Bible. "Do not do onto others, as one does not wish to be done onto".
Would you like to be encircled? Well...don't do it to others.
The age-old wisdom of "practicing as one preaches", does not apply to our dear leaders, as they set up the world for failure...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you live in a fort composed of civilians, intended to surround a concentration camp, then what do you expect? Neighbors who bring you candy and flowers?
'Hamas was created by Israel as a divide and rule intention, to undermine the PLO.* Gaza is the world biggest concentration camp, ringed in by a cicle of Kibbutzim, inhabited by settler colonists. Search that and one will find hundreds of articles, incl. from Israeli sources, who will confirm this Israeli strategy of deceit.
What you are witnissing today, is the own biblical "logic" of "reap as you sow".
Israel INTENDED to "sow division" between the peoples of Plaestine, and now they are "reaping" the effects.
Not nice, agreed, so sorry about your personal misfortune of living in a fort.
But effects of OWN actions nonetheless...
1
-
1
-
The "divide and rule" strategy gives millions of people the illusion that they are struggling for an own cause, whilst actually depleting their own energy fighting for the causes of other, higher powers...
[see footnote]
Just like "democracy" gives voters the illusion of choice, only to set them up in a collective "divide and rule"-setup, in which influence/TRUE power is funneled overwhelmingly in one direction: upwards.
Just like capitalism, gives advocates the illusion of chance, only to set them up in a collective "divide and rule"-setup, in which wealth is eternally funneled overwhelmingly in one direction: upwards.
Empires use and abuse human beings as...
- walls and barriers
- as proxies for the own gain
- as tools (instruments of power)
- as potential "staging areas" for future own use
- as "extensions" of the own power (or increased "reach" for the imperialist power)
Using other people are "cheap ways" to advance the American Century.
"Cheap" to the tune of 113 BILLION dollars to date, for probably the easiest avoidable war of the century...so far.
"To be clear, aiding Ukraine, giving the money to Ukraine, is the cheapest possible way for the US to enhance its security." - Zanny Minton Beddoes, editor-in-chief of The Economist
Just recently, and one of an entire string of similar such comments exposing the true strategy of power, Gen. Keith Kellogg (Ret.) said it's the "acme of professionalism" to use Ukraine to fight Russia because it "takes a strategic adversary off the table" without "using any US troops."
And then he added, "we can focus" on "our primary adversary, which is China."
China, the default enemy, to avoid Eurasian unity.
Divide and rule.
It's a long game...
Footnote:
The "divide and rule"-setup in any system, on any tier, is successful, because it employs an almost automated multiple hurdle/multiple cut off technique to keep good people "out" of the truly important positions of power. Do you remember Cassidy Hutchinson? She "failed" the test.
She "stumbled" on the very first "hurdle" on the road to true power, which is to remain silent.
...and that, in a nutshell, is how it works.
rgds
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DesertStateInEU Uhm, no. That's not what I said.
I said as a commodity, or "object to sell", it will become uninteresting if it is legal.
There will always be a demand for things like guns, drugs, etc.
Once "decriminalized", the price will drop, meaning that the opportunity to make money with this object will be reduced.
"Decriminalization" does not solve a drug problem in the countries which have the markets, but it will remove the opportunity to make millions of dollars with it for criminals, or (in case of Afghanistan), for the Taliban.
1
-
1
-
@DesertStateInEU Oh, I get your point.
But your point that one can "get rid of" terrorists is a so-called false premise which you can google for more info.
No, it isn't possible to "get rid of terrorists".
Same as it isn't possible to "get rid of drug abuse", or to "get rid of car crashes", or to "get rid of corruption".
All we can ever do in free societies, is to limit the impact of life's risks, and one way to limit the impact of the Taliban is to limit their resources. One way, is to remove support by the local population, by giving them an opportunity to provide for themselves and their families which does not depend on the goodwill of the Taliban. That, then "pulls the rug" from underneath the feet of the Taliban, giving moderate political forces the chance which they otherwise won't have.
If we keep up the "precipitation of metal" (your words), we are creating more support for the Taliban, and feeding the hate which leads to terrorism.
You keep on "precipitating metal", killing innocents, and Afghanistan will once again become The Graveyard of Empires.
Are you British?
In that case well done.
It'll be the 2nd time round.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shellminator Fact: By own admission, and known to all, the USA misuses NATO as a tool to ensure its global hegemony.
For that it needs "Euroweanies" that it can manipulate.
Just enough emotionally steered "Euroweanies" who are easily manipulated in a giant "divide and rule"-game, which uses a variety of emotionally-laden topics to incite outrage, tear open old wounds (history), and/or use negative human emotions like greed or the fear of losing out, etc. to stir up trouble.
"Trouble" can then be swum in, like a fish in water.
Beware of the dividers.
Age-old advice: "When a man is prey to his emotions, he is not his own master."
Benedict de Spinoza
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]"
Or as the old "insider joke" goes: NATO's "function" is "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out."
Nobody needs "friends" like that.
When "mutual defence" becomes a secondary function, and is rated below "big power ambitions", it is time to think the unthinkable.
1
-
1
-
@shellminator And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl/Historian)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
1
-
1
-
@shellminator From NATOs website:
"NATO Allies welcome Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO and they stand by the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance. Decisions regarding NATO membership are up to each individual applicant and the 30 NATO Allies. No one else. Russia has no right to intervene and cannot veto this process. Like every country, Ukraine has the sovereign right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security, one that Russia has also signed up to, including through the Helsinki Final Act (1975), the Charter of Paris (1990), the NATO-Russia Founding Act (1997) and the Charter for European Security (1999)."
Sounds "fair", right?
It is literally how "divide and conquer" works.
Seriously? The "alpha" graciously "allows" the "beta" to choose world afairs?
It is literally "history repeating" in "rivers of blood".
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...bye, bye..."
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct FACT: they did nothing.
First baited.
Then pwomises made.
Then sold out, when they DID next to NOTHING.
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct date on the timeline which is March 1939, when they did nothing.
The Ukraine today?
First baited.
Then pwomises made.
Then sold out, and they DO next to NOTHING.
Errrr...shouldn't they have considered that in view of escalation and Mutually Assured Destruction, before the guns started firing?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A summary of the forged "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", attributed often collectively to "the Jwes" who allegedly wanted to "rule the world".
As with every conspiracy theory, there is always a grain of truth to the theory.
IT IS DIVIDE-AND-RULE.
That is how simple it is, and what constitutes the "grain of truth".
Everything else is bs for the plebs who fall for easily-spun mysteries like a bedtime story time for the "child of history," those of a weak mind and submissive brain, therefore easily fooled...
The summary from ifunny:
01. Place our agents and helpers everywhere.
02. Take control of the media and use it in propaganda for our plans.
03. Start fights between different races, classes and religions.
04. Use bribery, threats and blackmail to get our way.
05. Use Freemasonic Lodges to attract potential public officials.
06. Appeal to successful people's egos.
07. Appoint puppet leaders who can be controlled by blackmail.
08. Replace royal rule with socialist rule, then communism, then despotism.
09. Abolish all rights and freedoms, except the right of force by us.
10. Sacrifice people when necessary.
11. Eliminate religion; replace it with science and materialism.
12. Control the education system to spread deception and destroy intellect.
13. Rewrite history to our benefit
14. Create entertaining distractions.
15. Corrupt minds with filth and perversion.
16. Encourage people to spy on one another.
17. Keep the masses in poverty and perpetual labor.
18. Take possession of all wealth, property and gold.
20. Introduce a progressive tax on wealth.
19. Use gold to manipulate the markets, cause depressions etc.
21. Replace sound investment with speculation.
22. Make long-term interest-bearing loans to governments.
23. Give bad advice to governments and everyone else.
24. Blame the victim.
"Our" = the "ingroup" (group dynamics).
Here is the scientific reality, which differs from the conspiracy theory, typically a far-right one:
Divide-and-rule is a STRATEGY which GREW ORGANICALLY everywhere where civilisations grew.
It is NOT "Jewish" but a systemic approach about how to rule and dominate regions of the globe, and ALSO ORGANICALLY GREW along with other empires on the other side of the globe (China for example, see their strategies of power using deception and a variety of power moves, which are very similar). Attributing it collectively to single group is scapegoating, by the deceivers who use such strategies and find nothing odd or jarring about these, but consider it "normal behaviour". These deceivers wish to fool ALL, even the own "ingroup", and deflect what they cause, by collectively attributing the EFFECTS of their own scheming, to others (strategy of "finger pointing" using many means).
Why did these widely different cultures, on different places on the map, all use the SAME or VERY SIMILAR strategies of deception and war by their ruling classes (collectively called "divide-and-rule")?
ANSWER: Because they work, regardless of the place on the map, or the point on the timeline.
They worked 2000 years ago when the Roman Empire used it in their empire, including the Levant when the Jwes were the victims of it (divided and rule by the Romans). It worked a thousand years ago. It worked in China, and in Africa, and in the Fertile Crescent of Civilization: West Asia, 3000 years ago. It worked 500 years ago when Europeans employed it everywhere they turned up (Era of European Colonialism) and it worked 200 years ago, 100 years ago, and it works today.* Divide-and-rule goes together with the rise of civilizations, like hand in glove. In collusion, or in association with modern civilizations. They work both within countries, and around countries. They work in corporations and in smalltime groups of any culture, language, religion, or any other idiology, and independent od¡f any other thought processes. There IS no "conspiracy" but for those who wish to achieve great gains at the expense of others. These "conspiracies" are not hidden, but wide out in the open, since the powers who implement all these tricks do so PROUDLY.
They are trying to deceive you, the reader of this essay, into thinking such deceit and sleigh of hand trickery should be considered "normal."
How to avoid DIVISION, is threaded into that old book of strategies:
If one ignores the tribal aspects of the Ten Commandments, the key Commandments to keep the peace, in a generally peaceful environment, are these:
The sixth command: "Thou shalt not kill," for the murderer slays the image of "God." Murder leads to endless copying and cycles of revenge. The seventh: "Thou shalt not commit adultery," for faithlessness towards another human being in general, is faithlessness to "the image of God" and leads to endless cycles of seeking revenge. The eighth: "Thou shalt not steal," for stealing results in endless cycles of violence, even murder, which leads to endless cycles of violence. The ninth: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor," for he who bears false witness against his neighbor commits a grave error. The tenth: "Covet not thy neighbor's wife, etc." Do not covet what is not yours.
Notice how, since the dawn of modern civilizations, that there are so-called "leaders" who do the exact opposite, thereby "playing God". They do so, but wish to blame everybody else for their own weak nature, and their intention to lie and steal, but to get others to do the dirty work FOR their "class". See 1 to 24 of the conspiracy against mankind, and who implements it, and is above all PROUD of all the lying and deception.
The New Testament on UNITY is the antithesis of the Old Testament on DIVISION.
Sometimes the most simple explanations are also the correct ones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Feb 17, 2024 — 'If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu,' says US Secretary of State Blinken...
Remember the names of all their "lunches."
Remember all their victims.
As millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy. All around the world, millions of others like Aaron Bushell have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Eastern Europe and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dogtles Yup.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global "balance of power", to avoid a few million gaining at the expense of billions, as the USA/collective West has done these past 500 years.
I'm sure Chinese and Russian leaders will imnediately agree to this, and our US/collective West will do as they've always done: pretend to wish to "sign up for it" overtly and ostentatiously (doves), but use deception to torpedo such attempts of global equillibrium covertly (hawks).
Good cop, bad cop.
Divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
The long shadow of the Treaty of Versailles:
Versailles was the "divide and rule" of and over continental Europeans, by outsiders of course. Everything following in its wake, was the EFFECT. Like it or not, reality does not care what any individual thinks. At Versailles, the people of Europe were "divided" with a "ruling." Such a "divide and rule"-strategy on the "dark side," lay the foundation of problems which have a clear causal chain of political problems leading right through to WW2, and even right through to today. The Treaty of Versailles was done for own gain after WW1 (obviously, weakening Central Europe by "carving it up," indirectly resulted in gaining more own strength/ more POWER for the dividers, by subtracting power from those systems being divided). The dividing powers were obviously wrong, because to an overwhelming extent, nobody bothered asking the people so divided what political future they wanted for themselves by means of referenda/plebiscites (overwhelmingly NOT carried out in those regions where it really mattered). Obviously also a BIG wrong, because by that time the leaders already knew what "dark divide and rule" might/could lead to in some possible future...
Empires use and abuse human beings as...
- walls and barriers
- as proxies for the own gain
- as tools (instruments of power)
- as potential "staging areas" for future own use
- as "extensions" of the own power (or increased "reach" for the imperialist power)
Imperialist arguing about the price tag for such services rendered. During the 1930s, the imperialists in Berlin, and the imperialists in London haggled about what should be considered a fair price in order for Germany to balance out the rise of the Soviet Union after the successful implementation of Moscow's 5-Year Plans, leading to a rapid steep rise of Soviet industrial- and military power during the 1930s, which threatened British rule over South Asia (see the history of the Second Tournament of Shadows (the rekindled "Great Game" of the 19th Century). Notice that such "haggling" can take place without a single direct meeting. Or, it can be explained by looking at actual events.
It is in fact revealed by reality, created by the events.
Place the EVENTS first.
So...first on the price tag list: a nice big navy...check.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_Naval_Agreement
A little piece of Germany back...check.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remilitarisation_of_the_Rhineland
A tiny sliver of Czechoslovakia...check.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
A nice little increase of political and military WEIGHT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Steel
(Based on a famous song from "To be or not to be" by Mel Brooks, 1984)
If German taxpayers were going to pay the taxes, and work to "man the parapets" of the limitrophe, to balance out Russia on the other side of the WALL, there was going to be "price tag." Like it or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitrophe_states
Europe wanted it that way and implemented this geopolitically with the Treaty of Versailles.
In the 1930s, Europe then GOT what it wanted, and what had been set up.
Cause.
Effect.
Simple.
"In 1980, I heard Ralph Raico give a series of lectures at Dartmouth College on World War I. At the time, I thought how great it would be to have those lectures published. I am extremely happy that this second edition provides the student of liberty with Ralph's ideas and the research evidenced by his extensive footnotes. His article on World War I is the best, most concise statement regarding the real causes and effects — the costs—of World War I that I have seen. The title of his article, "World War I: The Turning Point" indicates that World War I, which culminated in the horrible Treaty of Versailles, constituted the turning point for all of Western civilization. It set the stage for wars throughout the remainder of the 20th century, and virtually assured that another war would occur in Europe ..." From "The Costs of War" : America's Pyrrhic Victories / edited with an introduction by John V. Denson. — 2nd expanded ed.
Set the stage.
Lay the foundation.
Fail.
If you have the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being on the own "side" on the rim of the world, faraway from what one has lain the foundation for, then one simply does not have to care what happens in some or other foreseeable future. The own side can benefit from whatever happens...
As long as Europeans are dumb enough to believe faraway empires are there to protect them, and can't grasp HOW they are being mis/used to protect the bigger empire, then Europeans will have to keep on suffering.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, you are correct, but your elites see it differently. It has been their intention to control as much of the world as possible, for their own benefit.
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), (§§§footnote) the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed." SOURCE: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive
US strategist in these think tanks lay out the scheme of what was going to be the new post-war reality, as a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" for the USA to control. Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under US supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.)
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." Note, all words in quotes were actual words used IN THIS OFFICIAL US DOCUMENT, and the thesis and its quoted sources can all be downloaded for free, from the www, and using these key words provided for your search engine.
---------------------------------
After around 1940, ... (quote) "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident (§§§footnote) – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. *Within this framework the role of France, Germany and ENGLAND of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations..."
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world."
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.", Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ASIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside systems can "surf in and skim off the profits". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS OR PERSONAL PRIORITIES
European peoples are far to daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive them too, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that they end up thinking everything they do is justified, with "only a few exceptions" in order to seem fair...
Has your nation, or a leader already been "chosen as a favorite son of the West"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have with neighbors aside, or settle them fast, and don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme. Actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples across all borders.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these Western "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU today, for the gain of the outside Western Powers, just like divide and rule sacrificed your grandparents and previous Asian generations during the Era of Imperialism...
------------------------
P.S.: I cannot personally post this message myself too often, since YT autoblocks it as "spam" if I copy and paste it under videos too often. I need YOUR help. In your own interest of safety, please spread this message with regards to the age-old "divide and rule"-strategy of outside (non-Asian) powers. Thank You.
1
-
1
-
Re. each and every "Bismarck kept Germany safe"-narrative, or variations of that.
It is based on the confusion of terms and definitions of words.
The terms or concepts confused and whose definitions are often loosely conflated: geopolitics (international politics) and grand strategy (military scenario).
These are entirely different concepts.
Bismarck did not "keep Germany safe".
The reality was that Bismarck appeased St. Petersburg, hoping that this "appeasement" would "keep Germany safe".
Ahem...any historical similarities? :-)
The Reinsurance Treaty gave a lot, and received little in return.
It gave Russia a "shield for expansion", while in return it only offered limp geopolitical protection (not protection in regards to "grand strategy", or a "2-front war").
The reality of geopolitics at the time was that the Russian Empire was "cacooned" into a safe barrier created by geography/size. There was only one real "opening", which was Germany and Austria-Hungary in her west. If one has problems visualizing this, then image a horseshoe, placed on a map of pre-WW1 Russia, with the opening facing towards western Europe. The "horseshoe" is geography, which protected the Russian core with a barrier of geographical bariers with very few, and very limited (infrastructure) openings.
For all practical reasons (in geopolitics and grand strategy) a deal with Germany, kept Russia 100 % safe, while Germany was (in return) only 50% "safe" (geopolitics).
For Germany, there remained a dire threat of a 2-front war, and that was determined by geography also (Germany in the Center of the continent), which could only be closed by continuous vigilance and re-armament (quality was preferred over quantity).
A bad deal, since the decision to rescind or not renew the treaty obviously also lay in the hands of St. Petersburg.
Re the "100% safe Russia": For Russia, there was the Artic in the north, followed by Siberia, the Gobi desert, Himalayas, Hindukush, and mountainous Persia. These "barriers" continued with the Caspian Sea (not accessible to foreign navies), and the Caucasus. In Russia's south-west, there was only the weak "sick man", the Ottoman Empire (incl. by extension the Black Sea).
As long as the core remained strong, the periphery would remain easily defensible. The "shield" protecting her west, was provided by Germany and Austria-Hungary, who involuntarily or "by extension" of the Reinsurance Treaty, or any other deal, protected Russia's western border.
In regards to grand strategy, or the choice where to strike next: the initiative for such a choice remained in the hands of St. Petersburg for as long as her "non-aggression pact" was being "appeased" by Berlin (aka Reinssurance Treaty) remained intact.
What was there not to like for St. Petersburg?
The Reinsurance Treaty did not sit well with the London lords, regardless of the "kind words"-narrative we are reading about in our history books.
I wonder why...LOL...
Further details often demoted to "ancillary status" if mentioned at all, but are in fact important concerning "what really happened".
1) Unlike the previous agreements with Russia (Three Kaiser League) the Reinsurance Treaty was "secret", as far a "secrecy" was possible in the world of diplomacy.
Why could that possibly have been deemed as a neccessity?
In the age of the "Glastnost and Perestroika" of the times (openness/honesty of the Concert of Europe), why should none of the other powers know about this deal between Berlin and St. Petersburg?
2) It was St Petersburg who came up with the suggestion to replace the unworkable Three Kaiser League, which (initially) did not include Austria-Hungary (obvious hoodwink...let's leave HINT, HINT Austria-Hungary out of "our little deal" aka "throw the third little Kaiser under the bus").
3) It was Bismarck himself who revealed it shortly before he died (1896), in an obvious attempt of a domestic political smear directed at Wilhelm II. In other words, in an attempt to get back at Wilhelm II for be "fired" and to discredit him or his status, he openly embarassed his own country by revealing "secret scheming" in an age where (LOL again) "everyone was supposed to be "transparent as glass"...
The reality is that it was Bismarck himself who largely "wrote that history" with regards to "his" Reinsurance Treaty, and how he (backpat, backpat) "kept Germany safe". And because this fit in perfectly with "finger pointers", it was simply largely taken over by our own historians, who seemingly never bothered to investigate the premise of such an assumption.
Historians quoting historians.
Appeals to authority, and other fallacies...
Reality couldn't have been further from the truth.
As a general truth.
Actions speak louder than words.
Actions "count more" than mere words.
Just like today, we should weigh "words" especially those of politicians and other power people (also words spoken across the divide of time in our history books) with a grain of salt.
What they did (historical sense) and do today (our reality today) is what counts, not what they say or said.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
David Ben-Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
“Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. … Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice.”
— David Ben Gurion. Quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan’s “Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.
“We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return.”
David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar’s Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.
Zionists know exactly what they are doing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not the first time a US plan crushed Europe...
PART I
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), (§§§footnote) the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed." SOURCE: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive
US strategist in these think tanks lay out the scheme of what was going to be the new post-war reality, as a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" for the USA to control. Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under US supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.)
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." Note, all words in quotes were actual words used IN THIS OFFICIAL US DOCUMENT, and the thesis and its quoted sources can all be downloaded for free, from the www, and using these key words provided for your search engine.
---------------------------------
After around 1940, ... (quote) "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident (§§§footnote) – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. *Within this framework the role of France, Germany and ENGLAND of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations..."
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world."
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.", Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
1
-
Weakness exploited, the way friends do it...
PART II
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
-----------------------------------
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
§§§footnote
If you wish to know more about exactly how the British Empire was "being dismantled," please respond...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matsjonsson9492 Yes, that is correct.
Becoming "triggered" is counter productive.
They have already admitted that is was a mistake to get worked up and fire away with wrong words.
Problem is, the "right words" have been used ever since the 1950s and 1960s, but nobody is listening. Prophets have written books, protested (including myself, several times), tried political influence, lobbied the UN, debated, and given warning after warning after warning after warning to get out of the ME, and that meddling would lead to an escalation of ever increasing violence.
Nobody listened.
Until people are AFFECTED THEMSELVES, they live in a little bubble of indifference and complacency.
Why are you suddenly so worked up about the ME problem today?
Why were you not worked up in 1980, the year 2000 or 2010.
Read the above.
You, from Sweden, are the perfect example of why everything I write is correct....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's divide-and-rule.
At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule.
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others...
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favouritism.
"Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Sfrica, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the bahavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD"
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Brits thought they were sooooo clever and make a "pig's breakfast" out of Europe, as they always did as a matter of policy.
"Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
James Hacker : That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister [rolls eyes and laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister.
No "satire" there at all.
Not "funny comedy" at all if one ends up as a "tool" of London's little divide and rule schemes.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists...
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States),.
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Ask the affected millions what they wanted for themselves? Nah. That was below the lords...
So in 1939 Stalin and Hitler came along and made "a pig's breakfast" of the London lord's little scheme for their "divided continent" (see Secret protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact).
The lords wanted to play divide and rule with the continent's inhabitants indefinitely, for own gain, and in the end the UK became a tool of Washington DC, and they lost their Empire. Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945 and a subsequent few years.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was reduced to the status of "a scrap of paper". Awww. Sad. No nukes for the "special relationship" best fwiends 😅😆😁
Subsequently Washington DC used British weakness and made a pig's breakfast out of British markets (economic warfare), and re-divided the world into "east and west".
Didn't anybody notice?
The world went from a divided continent, to suit the expansion/protection of the British Empire/London, to a divided world, to suit the expansionprotection of The American Century/Washington DC.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's not about free speech.
As a private individual, she can think and say what she wants.
It's also not about her abstaining from voting, but the way she chose to go about it.
She didn't just simply abstain from voting.
Doing so, was within her rights and nobody objected to it of course.
PragerU is putting a spin on this story, to incite outrage.
Here is what happened.
She didn't merely chose not to vote (perfectly ok), but linked a political decision she took (which impacted the lives of others btw), to her own personal convictions.
That, should be frowned upon, because the USA is based on the separation of church and state. That means, as a leader, you're not supposed to value personal convictions higher than the law or founding documents of the USA, like the Constitution, or The Declaration of Independence. Note here, that it guarantees every American (not only Christians) the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness".
We should be constantly reminded not to stand in others way (within the laws of the land) who pursue happiness.
1
-
1
-
@ventriloquistmagician4735 Even better.
I let Thomas Jefferson do it for me :-)
"The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced to aJanuary 1, 1802, letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."[1]
from wiki
1
-
1
-
@chieftenphatts7048 It was far more than a tragedy.
It was a geopolitical/grand strategy disaster.
They got a suitable answer from The American Century aka Washington DC after WW2.
The story of how the Brits lost their Empire...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying a power or alienating it was neither wise, nor in GB's best interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
After WW2, London had no leverage to further enforce or secure agreements, and down went the British Empire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
The events later called WW1 & WW2 were a part of the same conflagration which started around the year 1900, with the naval powers encircling their continental neighbours.
For the American Century after the year 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger chunk of land than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": the technique used by Washington DC was the same, which is to make use of existing divisions. An ACTIVE means, of making use of such divisions, is known as the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy. A proactive means to further own interests at the expense of others, is to favor some (increasing the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decreasing the power of the snubbed).
For the ACTIVELY ENGAGED "divider" the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in order to achieve the useful division for the higher power, are not important. These are the 99% ancillary details of history. It doesn't matter how division is implemented, or how existing divides are deepened, or who aids for whatever reasons, or whether those aiding and abetting division are even aware that they are aiding division: what matters is that it is implemented.
For the divider it is not important why the tools cooperate, but the fact that the tools cooperate in creating division in overpowering a chunk of the planet somewhere.
Why and that are different premises...
The empire in search of gain disguised by the "only interests"-narrative, does not care about the "why" or "what" you think is "true"...
The conflagration unfolding after 1914 was another European 30 years war (with a 20-year break in between) and had virtually the same powers set up against each other, with a few exceptions (Japan and Italy as newbies or "turncoats"). Details are not important. They are the "99%" of history, which bear no impact on HOW events unfolded.
The powers set up thus were:
1) the naval powers (Great Britain/USA) with their continental "buck catchers" (like France after 1904, and Russia after 1907, for example).
against:
2) the continental alliances, which were encircled and kept from reaching sufficient spheres of influence to grow, by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy started as premeditated action by the naval powers around 1900.
In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", which is a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The end effect of the setup of 1) and 2) was that Western- and Central Europe were virtually destroyed as centers of power, and the USA then used the effect to grind the British Empire into a more manageable "junior partner"-status by use of a premeditated strategy planned after 1940, just after the start of the "second round" of this conflagration. Or as Ricky Gervais would quip, "kick the midget British Empire" in the "bollocks" because after WW2 London was so weak that it could not forge a useful "pattern of relations" (George Kennan, see below) to fight back, and save its own markets from their "best friends".
After 1945 the USA used its own might as "hammer" and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). Stalin (Moscow) of course, smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and the other remaining European states' weaknesses, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2, overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centred imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
All accompanied by fake narratives for the masses, of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the implementation of the American Century®, at the expense of the British Empire)
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
In 1945,for London, there was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games of divide-and-rule, and they were then ruled over, as they once ruled over others.
1
-
I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc...
Sorry to burst your bubble.
I've got some bad news for all you "never gonna fight"-fanboys.
YOU. WILL. GO.
Capturing the hearts and minds of the (mainly) young, rebellious, and easily-influenced, is a long-term goal of what W.T. Stead set out to do as the "Americanization of the World" (book) on all tiers: ideology, food, industrial products, movies, language, etc. Of course, what he didn't mention back then almost a hundred years ago when this global strategy started, was that this was in effect an old Roman-era strategy of power: to morph the conquered, to become "like Rome." Fill the bellies of the global masses ("Bread") and distract them with entertainment ("Circuses"), and then turn them into the tools of the empire.
Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy.
It gave whites ("Europeans") the basis of the power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other.
The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
Divide-and-rule was the advantage they thought they held 100 and 200 years ago, and they think it still is today.
There can be only 1 "winner". The others are the systemic "cannon fodder" for the gain of the few "buck passers".
Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything, nobody ever decided anything, everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, profiteers, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and finger-pointers...
Teach your children well...
Of course these hundreds of comments by Americans and Canadians mirror the comments made by hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favourite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the leadup to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power (in stages after 1890), in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) and their "buck-catchers", nodded off by the "buck passers" which hold the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed right through to today.
Whatever...
Guess who "wins"?
The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand).
The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction (MIRVs carrying nukes) as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
1
-
1
-
History will rhyme. THRICE.
If anybody wishes to know what is in store for the EU and other American "best fwiends" after 2025, look back in history to what the USA did to the British Empire after WW2, when it was bankrupt and weak. The first victim of the American Century was not as proclaimed and the generally accepted narrative of history, that "it was the USSR" (sic./Truman Doctrine, "Iron Curtain"-narrative), but the British Empire, which was cut down to size turning London from "British lion" to "poodle" in around 25 years, using economic warfare.
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500. My shoutout to the original author whose site is since removed.]
This is divide-and-rule.
A blueprint for how one Albion deceived the other, to become the "next Albion".
The transfer of power from one control freak system to the next.
Pure unfettered opportunism, via steered and implemented division of others for own gain..
After 1945 the USA used its own might as hammer and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). By 1945, Stalin (Moscow), smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and witnessing the collapse of virtually every other European power, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2. It was overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has self-centred imperialist aims and goals , one eventually destroys all alternatives, and when you try to defend everything, you'll eventually "defend nothing" (Friedrich the Great, re. a false allocation of clout and resources, in grand strategy and geopolitics).
That was preceded in geopolitics by a Washington DC shift away from a global non-interventionalist stand on international relations, towards a more active engagement in world affairs and global expansion which incl. European affairs (the study of "Offensive Realism") which started around the year 1900, symbolized by the Spanish-American War (1898). Something London lords happily signed up for with the "Great Rapprochement" (aligned and associated "friends only, no obligations", in the "interests"-reality of imperialism). London must have thought the good times were coming, alongside their "new friends" and making the rules for everybody else. Two Albions getting happily engaged...
What could possibly go wrong putting your trust in Washington DC?
AROUND THE YEAR 2000
In reality, your "friends" in capitalism over the Atlantic can't wait for history to repeat, to wait until Europe is weak again, exhausted from war, down in power, ready for the carving knives of OUTSIDE imperialism, all by the "friends" who are standing by and standing down to enter and benefit from the division and destruction they themselves greatly contributed to after the 1990s.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The following text about the German/Soviet occupation of Poland will hopefully give an indication just how evil some people are.
I hope everybody agrees:
From Wiki: "During the occupation following the 17th September demarkation, both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union tried to strengthen their influence in their respective occupation zones. They took control over the rail network and contracted half of Poland's publicly- and privately-owned trucks, thus occupying 75 percent of the country's prewar food distribution capacity in the midst of the 1940 harvest. The remaining transportation capacities were quickly rendered unusable because of a restriction of the import of spare parts.[2] That disrupted internal trade and social services and increased the cost of living by more than 700%.[3] After a bad harvest in 1940, famine struck the German-occupied west.[4]
The German government blamed the situation on hoarding, inefficient distribution and an inadequate transport system, but the Polish government in exile suspected that the Germans had deliberately manipulated the food supply to further their own political objectives.[6] Meanwhile, the Soviets banned food shipments from the east, claiming that they needed the resources for their own zone. The Polish government in exile blamed German mismanagement for the famine since there were no similar reports about such conditions existing in the Soviet-held areas. The Polish underground accused the Germans of looting the country and pushing the occupied territory into inflation and starvation.[7]
During the final months of 1941 and in 1942, the streets of the Warsaw Ghetto were full of semi-naked and hungry people with fifteen deaths attributed to hunger and poverty occurring every day. In February 1942, typhus broke out in the city and the hospital was closed down because of widespread infection among doctors and staff.[10] A secret British intelligence report on conditions in the ghetto for the week of March 13-20 1942, contains the following: "The streets have been full of hungry and half-naked beggars of whom about 15 die each day of starvation and typhus cases among the people have been numerous."[11]
The Germans downplayed the effects of their own occupation (quote): "...the death toll, though unknown, was probably modest".
Extremely selfish and brutal, as all can judge for themselves.
Scroll down...
Note here: The above text was copied from Wikipedia, and concerns the Iranian famine of WW2. The text was shortened, without changing the context. The only thing I changed was geographical references, and the nationality of the occupying force. British authorities confiscated trucks, labour, food and railway resources which quickly led to a famine with up to a million deaths or more: nobody even bothered counting. Apparenty the subjects under British protection did not even deserve the honor of being counted for any records. As mostly in British history, the victim numbers were seriously downplayed where their own attrocities were concerned, if mentioned at all. Also, as usual, the "circumstances" were blamed, not own crude lack of humanity: it was "the war", or whatever. Needless to say, there was no famine in 1940 or 1941 before Brits arrived as overlords, and Iranian leaders were in charge of own affairs. Nor was there hunger or extreme need in the Soviet occupation zone in the north, which can serve as a neutral reference, in case anybody feels the need for the usual "apologia"-outrage attack...
Be honest: Did you find yourself agreeing with my introduction, as you started reading?
If yes, did you change your mind about the scope of such inhumanity?
From the same wiki site (unaltered): "Alarmed at the reports of famine in Iran, Lieutenant-General Patrick J. Hurley, a friend and advisor to President Franklin Roosevelt ... called on Assistant Secretary of State, Adolph A. Berle on October 5, 1943, for the purpose of informing him of the substance of his report to the President. ... General Hurley had observed widespread starvation in Iran: "This was not, General Hurley said, hyperbole. He had seen the corpses in the streets and had heard the women and children crying over their dead." Commenting on his conversation with General Patrick Hurley, Berle wrote: "Unfortunately our own reports bear out Pat's statement as to the results of the British-Russian policy in Iran. In the last war, 25 percent of the entire population of that unhappy country starved to death as the result of the German activity there. This time, it looks as though the Allied occupation might produce about the same results."[13]
The devastating impact of World War II on Iran is acknowledged by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. In the entry in the Holocaust
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."[end of]
America's allies and foes in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
Set up European and Eurasian nations against each other.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
§footnote 1:
"In March 1786 Jefferson joined Adams in London on several items of official business and came away with all his prejudices against the “rich, proud, hectoring, swearing, squibbing, carnivorous” English nation confirmed.16 Carried to court by his friend, who had been cordially received a year before, Jefferson was snubbed and humiliated by George III. Nor did he find much friendliness anywhere. “That nation hates us,” he concluded, “their ministers hate us, and their king more than all other men.”17...In February 1788, Adams sailed for home (edit: from Europe). For Jefferson, as he wrote to Abigail (in private), it was the end of an epoch. It was the end of one epoch and the beginning of another in Europe too. The continent was turbulent from the Black Sea to the North. The Russians and the Turks were at war. In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution had been defeated and its leaders, who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile by the Stadtholder, William V, Prince of Orange, in league with the old oligarchs and with the intervention of Britain and Prussia. Adams and Jefferson agonized for the Dutch Patriots, but felt that they had been betrayed by their own excesses as well as by their Bourbon ally. The fact that France, pledged to the Patriots, had not lifted a finger in their support offered a melancholy lesson for the United States. “In fact,” Jefferson wrote to his friend, “what a crowd of lessons do the present miseries of Holland teach us. Never to have an hereditary officer of any sort; never to let a citizen ally himself with kings; never to call in foreign nations to settle domestic differences; never to suppose that any nation will expose itself to war for us, etc.", Adams and Jefferson : a Revolutionary dialogue / Merrill D. Peterson, Digital Library of Georgia Online Plattform
-----------
§footnote 2:
A little-known detail in all of this is the reciprocal acts of favor during the Crimean War (1853 – 1856) during which the USA greatly favored Russia, and which was then returned shortly afterwards during the Civil War, during which Russia openly stood by the side of the Union, constant mutual visits of good will, the sale of Alaska (1867), and only taking a turn for the worse much later after around 1880. Even such obscure events as Russian ships seeking shelter in New York at the opening of the Civil War (1863), at a time a war between Russia and Great Britain was feared due to the Russian oppression of Polish subjects, undermines the generally favorable relations. At the time, the USA was in a period of great uncertainty, since its own expansion could have always triggered a European alliance of sorts against it. The premier US choice of European powers was therefore actually Russia, and as Washington DC began testing the own expansion into North and South America with a variety of doctrines, support of revolutionary movements, commercial enterpise, wars and great centrally steered state land purchases, and if these expansionist aims were to be gained without a Pyrrhic victory of great war with European powers, Washington DC needed friendly relations to at least some European powers. This begs the question why the USA would possibly choose Imperialist Russia as a possible candidate with access to Washington DC's power? A suggestion: if one looks at a map of Eurasia and considers the European balance of power at the time in the mid 19th century, while US expansion took place in great strides, and analyse the directions of the aims and goals of these European powers at the time. The Russian Empire's main rival was the British Empire, while it had friendly relations to its most powerful European neighbor, Germany. Russia and the USA therefore had shared rivals. During the Great Game the British and Russian empires were locked in a series of low-key limited wars on the fringes of both empires, interspersed by accords regarding specific contested spheres of interest, as both expanded into Asia in an imperialist struggle spanning around 75 years (roughly 1840 - 1907). At the same time, Russia was undertaking steps to withdrawn from the North American continent, and St. Petersburg expressed little inclination to make this a contested sphere of influence between it and the USA: the vital lack of friction between opposing systems. Noticing what is missing often goes under in the scholarly analysis of history, which tends to focus on what happened and can be evidenced. In this case a lot of friction between Washington DC and European powers like Great Britiain and France which already had spheres of influence in the area protected by the Monroe Doctrine, old empires like weakening Spain, or the new German Empire, trying to gain more than simply commercial footholds in South America. Until the 1880s. there were few points of discontent or rivalry between the USA and Russia. The second half of the 19th century, as the USA achieved its own internal period of consolidation with a great consolidation of power (The Gilded Age/1877 to 1896, and Era of Reconstruction/1865 to 1877), also brought about great leaps in overall power as the US industrial revolution first quickly caught up to European powers, and then overtook these in succession. Towards the end of that period of internal consolidation, a parallel development was better relations to key European powers of France as symbolized by the gift of the Statue of Liberty, followed by the Great Rapprochement with London (after 1895). Friendly relations to Russia were no longer necessary, nor useful since Russia had already withdrawn, had no further "Sword of Damocles" potential it could use as political tool against Washington DC, and Russian relations slowly took the back seat in Washington DC. After 1900 it dwindled rapidly, amongst news of atrocities (Jewish pogroms), and the generally enthusiastic views about the "David" Japan, standing up to the oppressive European "Goliath" Russia during the Russo-Japanese War (1904/05).
The above reveals how Russia was dumped when it was no longer useful to achieve own aims and goals in North America.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you live in a frontier fort composed of civilians, intended to surround a concentration camp, then what did these settler colonists expect? Neighbors who bring them candy and flowers?
Hamas was created by Israel with a divide and rule intention, to undermine the authority of the PLO. Search that and one will find hundreds of articles, incl. from Israeli sources, which will confirm this intentional Israeli strategy of deceit and division.
Gaza is the world's biggest concentration camp, ringed in by a cicle of Kibbutzim, inhabited by armed settler colonists. If you want to know what's going on, ask a Jwe. They will honestly tell you straight in your face, and dare you to resist: "We are a generation that settles the land, and without the steel helmet and the cannon's fire we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home.” Moshe Dayan
The intention is ethnic cleansing, and a pretext is needed to vacate the land under the terror of cannon fire, in order to create the next concentration camp, ringed in by the next ring of Kibbutzim, inhabited by the next selection of future "victims of terrorism"...
What you are witnissing today, is the own biblical "logic" of "reap as you sow". Israeli strategists, safely within the reach of the safety of their BUNKERS, intended to "sow division" between the peoples of Palestine, and now individual Israelis and foreigners are "reaping" the effects of previous choices. Not a nice personal tale, agreed, so sorry about the personal misfortune of living in a frontier fort, and choosing to become a tool of encirclement.
But the own personal decisions to live a life as soldiers of fortune, using the own families as a human shields, whilst surrounding an open-air concentration camp as a tool of strategic encirclement, sometimes have unhappy consequences...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Far worse.
Only a fool would indiscriminately kill potential allies (Christians trapped in a dictatorial state), in order to save people who would stick a knife in their back as a matter of ideology the minute they got the chance to do so (Communists).
Sun Tzu said: "In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to capture an entire army, a regiment or company rather than to destroy it."
Allied leaders: leTs toTally deStroy the baLance of powEr and thEn hope thAt commIes are honeSt anD decEnt
The Western Allies "sowed" death and "reaped" 50 years of Cold War, which (as we know today) almost lead to the end of mankind on half a dozen occasions (MAD). Of course, if it hadn't been for the divide and rule policies of the previous alpha in the world (London), there need never have been "Nazis" and "commies" to fight in the first place...
In 1941, a smart leadership would have let the nazis and commies "slug it out" to mutual destruction, seeing how they were sworn enemies.
Recipe for success?
Only support the losing side as much so they don't collapse, but not enough to win outright.
And to all those, "...but my dadda fought for the right side"-comments: Do you know who enabled WW2, because he wanted your grandparents/parents to die?
Stalin.
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
Roosevelt and Stalin: leTs saVe thE cOmmieS so wE caN fIght tHem in 5 yEars...
No wonder the cute "Uncle Joe" Stalin was always smiling.
He couldn't have found a bigger bunch of fools if searched for them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williammoney962 I understand the point you are trying to make, which is that "life was rougher", and that "hardship/brutality was the norm", etc.
That is why I would ask the historians "How do you know what most people thought 300 years ago?"
The fact that life was hard, tough, brutal, does not mean that the average Joe agreed to it or considered it fair. Fact is, none of the elites back then gave two sh*ts about what Joe thought, and Joe knew that if he voiced an opinion, he'd be on the next boat to Australia. And we're not talking Carnival Cruise Lines. More like a one-way ticket to hell.
Point is that the average people back then probably saw the brutality, but bit theirs lips and rather said nothing, rather than swinging from the gallows.
There were no polls (asking commoners what they thought about issues), there was no freedom of speech, no rights, no widely available newspapers, no nothing. Most people couldn't read, spread ideas, or write their thoughts down.
The question therefore is, if one says "it was considered ok back then", we can follow that up with "how do you know that?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, it won't be the first time in history that Europe's strongest nation was made "the enemy" as default setting by a few "lords", even though at a time (all throughout the mid-19th century, right up to 1880s) when most leaders, business partnerships, and common folks got along just fine...
[From Britannica...."Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."]
The truth of course, that an own policy determined that no geopolitical form of co-operation with Germany was possible as secretly decided in London.
Policy?
The strongest nation is the enemy/rival.
Some things never change...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Much better.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
If you live in a frontier fort composed of civilians, intended to surround a concentration camp, then what did these settler colonists expect? Neighbors who bring them candy and flowers?
Hamas was created by Israel with a divide and rule intention, to undermine the authority of the PLO. Search that and one will find hundreds of articles, incl. from Israeli sources, which will confirm this intentional Israeli strategy of deceit and division.
Gaza is the world's biggest concentration camp, ringed in by a cicle of Kibbutzim, inhabited by settler colonists. If you want to know what's going on, ask a Jwe. They will honestly tell you straight in your face, and dare you to resist: "We are a generation that settles the land, and without the steel helmet and the cannon's fire we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home.” Moshe Dayan
The intention is ethnic cleansing, and a pretext is needed to vacate the land under the terror of cannon fire, in order to create the next concentration camp, ringed in by the next ring of Kibbutzim, inhabited by the next selection of future "victims of terrorism"...
What you are witnissing today, is the own biblical "logic" of "reap as you sow". Israel INTENDED to "sow division" between the peoples of Palestine, and now they are "reaping" the effects. Not a nice personal tale, agreed, so sorry about the personal misfortune of living in a frontier fort, and choosing to become a tool of encirclement.
But the own personal decisions to live a life as soldiers of fortune, using the own families as a human shields, whilst surrounding an open-air concentration camp as a tool of strategic encirclement, sometimes have unhappy consequences...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politicians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles (see my comment 4 weeks ago).
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct date on the timeline which is March 1939, when they did nothing.
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not in my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies. How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets have they. Me want some...me take some."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen positive relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Curb the darker aspects which create internal division.
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Be principled, or become a tool.
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up.
Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
@Lamin_G Yes, excellent observation.
Firstly, to clarify, I meant those types of people, who are usually unhappy with life or just plain bored, who criticize everything, and engage in endless nitpicking.
Actually, to connect to your comment, one of the points I always make is that one can use the internet, social media, etc. (mostly corporations too), to actually undermine 'corporatism' by using it as a plattform to spread the message to boycott large corporations..
1
-
ASIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside powers can "surf in and skim off the profits". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS
European peoples are to daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that that end up thinking everything they do is justified, with "only a few exceptions"...
Has your nation, or your leader been "chosen as a favorite son of the West"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have with neighbors aside, or settle them fast, and don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme. Actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU today, for the gain of the outside Western Powers, just like divide and rule sacrificed your grandparents and previous Asian generations during the Era of Imperialism...
------------------------
P.S.: I cannot personally post this message myself too often, since YT autoblocks it as "spam" if I copy and paste it under videos too often. I need YOUR help. In your own interest of safety, please spread this message with regards to the age-old "divide and rule"-strategy of outside (non-Asian) powers. TY
1
-
1
-
1
-
Who has ever heard of the big bad scarecrow?
Dresden Bombed To Atoms (1945)
(Copy and paste into the YT search engine, then go 23 seconds into the newsreel)
For years after the end of WW2, newsreels like this British Pathe informed us about the events of WW2.
The docs were filled with exciting tidbits, and exhilarating 'facts'. For example, one of the 'facts' the historians told us about was how the Germans had 'devised a scarecrow weapon': a massive aerial explosion which was meant to look like an exploding plane. The German intention was to scare away 'our boys from doing the job'. Like a scarecrow in the fields, these explosions were intended to scare British air crews away from bombing their targets, the city centers.
These massive explosions were merely 'a clever German ruse', and a 'new German weapon'.
Or, so we were being told...
"The No. 30 tail pistol (detonator), which was widely used in all medium calibre bombs throughout the war, is a good example of the difficulty Bomber Command had in obtaining operational feedback on bombing attacks. Bomber Command only became aware that the No. 30 pistol had severe problems when its crews undertook daylight-bombing operations in the autumn of 1944. During this period, bomber crews were appalled to see bombs dropped from accompanying aircraft explode as they left the aircraft. Subsequent investigations found that the nut on the striker spindle was binding and forcing the spindle onto the detonator. In the dark, this fault had not been obvious and crews, if they survived, would have assumed that the explosion was German flak. Attempts to fix the problems did not entirely prevent these premature detonations and the designers had found no fix for the problem before the war ended. It is therefore reasonable to suspect that a large percentage of the medium sized bombs using the No. 30 Pistol failed and, worse, they may have been responsible for the destruction of the aircraft that carried them."
(Source BRITAIN 1939 – 1945: THE ECONOMIC COST OF STRATEGIC BOMBING)
So, here is how some of our esteemed historians work.
When the truth comes out, do they stand up and inform us about how they have misinformed us, and distorted the truth?
Do they admit that they have lied, if it was a clear-cut case of lying?
Nope.
Doesn't happen.
The reality is that misconceptions which were spread for years, are simply quietly dropped.
Of course, it is hoped that the docile sheep who believed what had been dished up to them for years, are simply too pre-occupied to notice.
Worked well, works well all the time when dealing with mere sheep...
Need any more evidence?
`Nazi War Plants Blasted By R.A.F. In Night Raids (1943)' see at 1.34 minutes when the commentator says '.. a bomb hit by flak in mid air...'
I call bs. It was a bomb exploding in mid-air, caused by it's own faulty fuse...or even worse: maybe even an exploding plane, downed by a known engineering error.
Critical question: If they "lie by omission" about something this minor, then what are they lying about today, hoping you'll forget in 10 or 20 years when the truth comes out?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The big picture...and how the little piece of the puzzle called "Mers el Kebir" fit into it.
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent or dissing it, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying the continental balance of power, was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings.
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...game over...
Yup.
Well done.
Like pulling the rug from underneath one's own feet and then falling over.
1
-
...because Hasan is right.
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Training "terrorists"?
How'd that work out?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Not Buy: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," buy 2nd hand quality products, or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just "not buy" ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join "not buy", because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, nothing has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by "not buying" all big brands. Start "not buying" them all.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are you a citizen of the world, and wish to contribute a small share to force Israel into a negotiated peace process?
Are you American, or European? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from the multitude of military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any platform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unraveling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a long term lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influential rich and powerful only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
Very simply answered:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy.
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
Don't be a sheep.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DavidArias-c1f Your age is not important.
What I've gathered from thousands of debates, is that people either instinctively grasp the strategy of divide-and-rule, or they never get it.
Washington DC is the world's biggest "mother-in-law" trying to drive a rift between people, for own gain. Like the mother-in-law instinctively uses the divide-and-rule technique to drive a rift between fathers and children, to gain more control over these children for the gain of "her" system, which is her own daughter (or vice-versa)..
What the USA does to "divide" people elsewhere, is the same.
Have you heard about "brain drain"?
I fear you might have become a part of it, without becoming aware of it. By "dividing" South Americans on multiple tiers with multiple means, the "brains" leave and go to the "empire." The Romans already used this technique to "divide" their neighbors. I suggest reading up about the strategies of power .
The "empire" only rewards loyalty, not "right/wrong". Do you remember the statistics about the rampant poverty rates in Venezuela up to the 1990s? (70% poverty, steadily getting worse by the decade).
The Empire does not care.
It cares about loyal minions who enable the wealth of entire regions to be siphoned off, for the gain of the empire and the richest people on the planet, and only rewards the few local enablers, at the expense of the masses.
You couldn't find more un-Christian behavior.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just for context:
She delivered an unrequested sermon...
“As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true,” Chow wrote. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman.
Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
Again, Christians try to define what is "right", and then cry foul if they are called out for their narrow mindedness....
Nobody asked her to give a sermon, and quite frankly, people are tired of it.
Nobody has to listen to anybody's personal opinions about "right vs wrong".
The founding fathers drafted the Declaration of Independence, that grants every American the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and hapiness "
Yup, as a real American, that trumps your or mine, or some random Christian's sermon any day, don't you think?
1
-
1
-
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid schem can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal.
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest long-term contributing factor for WW1 was the west's attacks on the Ottoman Empire.
Under constant threat of attack at the fringes (Libya, Egypt, Balkans, etc.), the Ottomans were looking for a protector in Europe and found one in Wilhelm II.
A strong alliance would have protected the Ottoman Empire from further western aggression.
Paris and St. Petersburg wanted to avoid this, at all costs...
For a close alliance between Berlin-Vienna-Budapest-Constantinople to become effective, land access was a prequisite...
Pesky Serbia was in the way, and gave Vienna a perfect pretext for war, by supporting a terrorist organisation (The Black Hand).
Just imagine, if the Ottoman Empire had simply been left alone, in peace, to develop or fall apart naturally...
As always, the vultures of history cause wars by their own actions.
1
-
One can never understand why China's communist leaders chose the "logic" of millions of dead and suffering as Mao's madness, unless one completely understands China's recent subjection as their "Century of Humiliation" (1839 to 1947). During these roughly 100 years, OUTSIDERS entered China and undermined its cohesion via the divide-and-rule technique. A strategy which aims to "rule" a region of the globe, by "division." That was China, carved up and managed by foreigners, during Europe's (and later US and Japanese) foreign meddling, which divvied up the rewrds amongst themselves, siphoning off gains.
The entire system they favor in the West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often repeated nice-sounding storyline. The graphic depiction of Yin and Yang is not only valid about the "good vs bad" dichotomy (Taoism), but can also apply to the model of "UNITY/CONCORD" vs "DIVISION/DISCORD".
As the model of Yin and Yang states, there is always some good in the bad, and always some bad in the good, and equilibrium is hard to achieve since human nature tends to allow the pendulum to swing past the point of equilibrium, towards the other pole. Equally, every system based on division per default, always contains some elements of forces of unity. And, the other way around: systems based on the default setting that unity is the main principle, will always contain elements of division. When studying thousands of man-made systems, one reaches the conclusion that some are more "top down" UNITY with some lower tiered "freedoms" allowed in order to keep the peace, whilst others are more "bottom up freedoms" with restrictions applying. Both meet in the middle somewhere, and then try to constantly balance powers between the various factions. A "Republic" is already a "meet-in-the-middle" approach, since it divides power on multiple tiers.
What happened in Europe post-1900 can be juxtaposed onto China's recent relevant history of trying to break free from Western dominated imperialism. To anybody who knows a bit of Chinese history, it becomes clear that our Western narrative of "WW2" does NOT apply to China, since China was already in a more or less bloody war between outside imperialists and meddlers (dividers of Chinese unity using local proxies). During its Century of Humiliation, China was a classical case of "war/policy/division" by proxy. Proxies were employed, funded, armed, and financed to achieve the division of China during the Era of European Imperialism.
The dividers have it easy.
All they have to do to create regional/global division, is to continuously lie to foster dissent, covertly steal for inequality, always meddle using political favouritism, and eternally instigate violence, by either outright declaring war or simply allowing wars to happen (not stop these wars, aka "enabling war as eternal event).
The local political forces had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER during the 19th and 20th centuries. The local strategists used old strategies to try to re-introduce a fully sovereign China. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for Chinese interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside imperialist powers and their proxy rule and domination. During these roughly 100 years, the European imperialist powers were later joined by the USA and Japanese imperialist powers, and later Soviet and Western ideologies, all continuously using China as battleground. Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided Chinese systems, is of course a dumb strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. If weak, and while weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division. You don't fight fire with fire, but with water.
One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity.
Therefore when studying the "WW2" part of the Chinese Century of Humiliation (1839-1947), it becomes clear why the western proxy Chiang-Kai Shek was accused by his allies of "hoarding" his Lend-Lease, and not doing more to fight the Japanese. The local proxies in China during this battle of "post-WW1 China" as yet another link between WW1 and WW2, were already preparing for the war they KNEW would follow AFTER the Western narrative of "WW2" ended, and the West conveniently disposed of one of these outside proxies (Japan plus local collaborators). That WW1 and WW2 (1914 to 1945) had already resulted in a serious weakening of the European powers also, for the benefit of whoever was left in China (grand strategy) was also already clear. In our Western urge to name-brand wars, this post_WW2 phase is often referred to as "Chinese Civil War", whereas in reality it was simply ALWAYS an outside proxy war, carried out on the territory of China, which intended to DIVIDE China into interest zone (spheres of influence). This constant name branding affords the ability to hide the outside powers' divide-and-rule strategy of power.
WW1 and WW2 were one global struggle with multiple layers and which merely had a 20 year gap in between.
Do we live in eternal peace interspersed by wars, or do we live in eternal war, interspersed by peace?
In the eternal battle between unity/concord and division/discord, it is we who waste our time arguing.
Who is right or wrong?
Is it the "weak" who are right/wrong, or is it the "strong"?
Is it some the "the West" or is it some of "the rest"?
Is it the "democracies" or is it the "autocracies"?
Is it the "attacker" or the "defender"?
Is it the "blue team" waving their banner, or the "yellow team" chanting their slogans?
As they point fingers vigorously, arguing their "my ingroup" against "your ingroup"-dichotomies, here is one thing the opposites don't realize as they argue like children.
Who gains from division?
Who would gain from unity?
As the excited dissenters extend themselves, weaken themselves and end up totally exhausted with arguments, they don't realize they are all the victims of the biggest lie in history.
Who gains from eternal division?
Qui bono?
The finger pointers are at the receiving end of the biggest joke of history, for as long as they point the finger at someone else to try to pass the blame for their own previous actions, they stumble in broad daylight, and fall for the false prophets who deceive them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote:
We are being told that our preferred model/ideology of capitalism and democracy, with a strong independent legal system, is more bottom-up and by the people than top down. As long as we live in true forms of democracy, which do not intend to enforce top-down rule and domination, then that is so. However, we live in systems in which capitalism tends to morph into corporatism, which is totally (privatized/managed) top-down, with little in the form of freedom or bottom-up power. How these corporations employ the divide-and-rule technique is explained in a below comment.
1
-
Divide-and-rule is the easiest of all strategies to explain: when you reach the top, divide everybody else, by driving rifts between them, or deepening existing rifts. That's it.
"If someone can prove me wrong and show me my mistake in any thought or action, I shall gladly change. I seek the truth, which never harmed anyone. The harm is to persist in one's own self-deception and ignorance." - Marcus Aurelius
Some politicians and rulers may implement or deepen these divisions innocently and without thinking, but most know exactly what they are doing with their divisive tongues and their line-drawing divisions. It is their most successful technique that allows them to rule over us by preventing greater unity among people. This allows them to skim off enormous wealth from the gross national product that actually belongs to all people. If it is important to you, forward this message to others. Unite with those you are ordered to hate, according to Goethe because this is the counter strategy of "the wise". We should not allow them to continue winning in the same way for the next thousand years.
Divide-and-rule.
Draw lines, some "on the map", others invisible lines based on emotions/affiliations of individuals, then set the people up against each other.
If there is a problem, blame somebody else.
That is the historical Albion's way.
Incredible how many can be deceived for so long.
Despite the best efforts of the political doves, the political hawks keep conflicts alive by drawing lines in favor of one group over the other. The lines were often randomly drawn through tribes, through religious- or ethnic groups, to favor either the one, then the other. This created volatile hot spots of ethnic conflicts to use as pretext for intervention and occupation as the moral "rule maker".
------------------------------------------------------
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
The whole thing is then maintained by a house of cards made of lies and deceit, with billions of fiat currency.
---------------------------------------------------------
Selwyn Duke: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Often misattributed to George Orwell, the quote simply reaffirms what thinkers like Thomas Jefferson already concluded ages ago, which is that the easiest to deceive and influence are the rich ("interests"-crowd), proud (incl. false patriotism), hectoring (warmongering), swearing (shallow), carnivorous (greedy) individuals, often flocking in large herds forming "interests groups" of diverse enablers, united by common causes. When one studies the blogs and comments sections of the internet, one can see their comments everywhere, esp. prevalent under typically "popular- or narrative" history videos. They are all too easily swayed by their own human nature. Philosophy offers hundreds of similar quotes and parables from different epochs and cultural groups.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces/wealth when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
>>>
The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
>>>
The people of the Americas, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people into "ingroups". In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the USA's power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS. Eden was a status quo divided by lies and deceit. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the two Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly are two cheeks of the same gold-plated hind which sets out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, is the mirror of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion.
The Albion 2.0 took over...
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets and becomes successful it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances.
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peterrezac881 It's not about "open your eyes" or "being woke" but something far deeper.
I know about the principle of "multiple people, combined in multiple entities, working towards multiple causes".
The independent US justice system aims at not becoming a tool of any entity/agenda, especially of politicians and their advisors, by remaining independent, using laws as guidelines (not agendas or money aka corruption).
Note, US courts don't "believe", or use speculation ("seems likely"), and don't simply convict based on "suspicion", or allow "he said/she said"-evidence.
Admirable.
I suggest to leave the question re. "evidence" to courts, and not "agendas", irrelevant of ideology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wilhelm is often compared to Bismarck.
An interesting "episode" regarding "duplicity" and the way European states interacted at the time, occured in the late-1870s.
Bismarck stepped forward and offered himself as the "honest broker" (Congress of Berlin) to avoid a potential war between the saber-rattling London and St Petersburg, because of the after effects of Russo-Ottoman War of 1877/78 (San Stefano).
As a "thank you" for his efforts as peacemaker and for avoiding war, Bismarck attracted the wrath of the Russian Tzar. Russian anger for getting cheated out of the spoils of this war between Russia and the "evil Ottomans who were oppressing Christians in the Balkans" (the usual widespread "appeal to emotion" for the masses, to cover up the real aims of wars: rule/domination/interests/territory/power/etc., and in this case, St Petersburg heading for the Dardanelles), was suddenly refocussed from London onto Berlin.
Bismarck had triggered a deep feeling in St Petersburg of betrayal: after Russian neutrality had done a large share of "enabling" Bismarck's German unification, St Petersburg now felt that it was obviously time for a "reward" of sorts. Berlin should in return, "enable" further Russian expansion south at the expense of the Ottoman Empire (Dardanelles, the "warm water port"-narrative) and support St Peterburg against British, French or Austrian-Hungarian protests as they realized their long-sought ports outside of the Black Sea ("Greater Bulgaria").
Even worse, while London walked away with a reward (Cypress), Berlin got a crumpled Three Kaiser League and an angry Tzar breathing down their necks. His efforts for securing peace between Russia and Great Britain, resulted in an enhanced risk of war for millions of people in Eastern/Central Europe. All exactly as the "pat our own backs" lords of London (Disraeli/Salisbury) intended. The intention of London throwing their weight into the after-effects of the Russo-Ottoman War, and by supporting the "bad guys" (Ottoman Empire) during this war, had from the outset been to drive a wedge between the "three kaisers", which were perceived to be a threat to the own British Empire.
On analysis, it was a London move to prevent a potentally possible alliance forming out of the existing agreement between the "three kaisers"(Germany/Russia/Austria-Hungary)by driving a wedge between the three.
Is that how London rewarded their peacemakers?
Bismarck: "Once bitten, twice shy..."
The apprentice Wilhelm: "What conclusions can we draw from the above?"
Strangely enough, the same actions by Wilhelm II (1905: the Morrocan "crisis" = avoid a potentially dangerous alliance forming) is interpreted by some historians as having an "evil", or "world conquering" intent, and is widely believed.
So how should we judge the attempt to drive a wedge between potentially dangerous alliances forming? "Evil", or "normal"? Surely it can't be both ;-)
Anyway...
After the Berlin Congress peacekeeping mission, Germany ended up in the vulnerable "middle of Europe", endangered by a 2-front war, with a shattered agreement and potentially without anybody to ally with at all. Fearfull visions of the days of Friedrich must have returned, and only the rapid action by Bismarck averted a disaster. Should Berlin have simply ignored Austria-Hungary's resulting weakness after the Three Kaiser League so rapidly dissolved, Vienna might have simply distanced themselves to look for a "good deal" elsewhere. Russia maybe? A war for Germany on three fronts? His very own agreement between the three empires and kaisers, to keep the peace and which was well within the scope of the "gentleman's agreement" of the Congress of Europe, was almost turned into a complete enciclement of the country whose leaders had stepped forward as "peacemaker".
Another example of the amorality of states.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS/GLOBALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS/MILITARISTS. Their branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
1
-
Who has ever heard of the big bad scarecrow?
Dresden Bombed To Atoms (1945)
(Copy and paste into the YT search engine, then go 23 seconds into the newsreel)
For years after the end of WW2, newsreels like this British Pathe informed us about the events of WW2.
The docs were filled with exciting tidbits, and exhilarating 'facts'. For example, one of the 'facts' the historians told us about was how the Germans had 'devised a scarecrow weapon': a massive aerial explosion which was meant to look like an exploding plane. The German intention was to scare away 'our boys from doing the job'. Like a scarecrow in the fields, these explosions were intended to scare British air crews away from bombing their targets, the city centers.
These massive explosions were merely 'a clever German ruse', and a 'new German weapon'.
Or, so we were being told...
"The No. 30 tail pistol (detonator), which was widely used in all medium calibre bombs throughout the war, is a good example of the difficulty Bomber Command had in obtaining operational feedback on bombing attacks. Bomber Command only became aware that the No. 30 pistol had severe problems when its crews undertook daylight-bombing operations in the autumn of 1944. During this period, bomber crews were appalled to see bombs dropped from accompanying aircraft explode as they left the aircraft. Subsequent investigations found that the nut on the striker spindle was binding and forcing the spindle onto the detonator. In the dark, this fault had not been obvious and crews, if they survived, would have assumed that the explosion was German flak. Attempts to fix the problems did not entirely prevent these premature detonations and the designers had found no fix for the problem before the war ended. It is therefore reasonable to suspect that a large percentage of the medium sized bombs using the No. 30 Pistol failed and, worse, they may have been responsible for the destruction of the aircraft that carried them."
(Source BRITAIN 1939 – 1945: THE ECONOMIC COST OF STRATEGIC BOMBING)
So, here is how some of our esteemed historians work.
When the truth comes out, do they stand up and inform us about how they have misinformed us, and distorted the truth?
Do they admit that they have lied, if it was a clear-cut case of lying?
Nope.
Doesn't happen.
The reality is that misconceptions which were spread for years, are simply quietly dropped.
Of course, it is hoped that the docile sheep who believed what had been dished up to them for years, are simply too pre-occupied to notice.
Worked well, works well all the time when dealing with mere sheep...
Need any more evidence?
`Nazi War Plants Blasted By R.A.F. In Night Raids (1943)' see 1:34 minutes were the commentator says '.. a bomb hit by flak in mid air...'
I call bs. It was a bomb exploding in mid-air, caused by it's own faulty fuse...or even worse: maybe even an exploding plane, downed by a known engineering error.
Critical question: What are they lying about today, hoping you'll forget in 10 or 20 years when the truth comes out?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paranoid090 The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could tben be directed at tbe British Empire.
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss. Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your "balancing" games on the continent....
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing you out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How history rhymes...
Meanwhile, after more than two years Boris Johnson has admitted that the war in the Ukraine is a proxy war for US/collective Western interests, and Vladimir Zelensky has stated that "there are those in the West who don't mind a long war [in Ukraine]" to extend Russia, using his peoples as tools for the gain of outsiders who drool over the profits (Mitch McConnell), or lust after the systemic expansion possible as result of great upheavals amongst human beings. Does this take the wind out of the sails of the "paid Putin puppet"-screamers, blindly chanting their MSM narratives against those who have said this from day 1? Not at all. In order to fit their world views, these tools will deny reality, rattle down the narrative to a point of making total fools of themselves. They would now have to believe that Boris Johnson, or Vladimir Zelensky are "paid Putin puppets", in order to square a circle...
This is exactly what is meant with fools arguing their way into the trenches their own leaders have deceived them into. The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
Never mind how faraway they march from the own homelands, they will only be "defending themselves" or the "friends" they have made on their marching routes...
1
-
1
-
1
-
One side, is setting the stage for war.
"Somebody" is in the way, but I won't mention names :-)
Somebody needs a justification and a "WMD"- reason to invade...
Somebody is desperately trying to point the finger elsewhere, hoping dumb people won't notice....
Let's look at a historical parallel:
All throughout the 1920s and 1930s, there was this dangerous ideology which threatened us all…
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Wahhabism,-terrorism-and-the-'confessions'-of-a-Saudi-prince-43465.html
And then Dachau and other slave camps. What kind of people would enslave their neighbors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Saudi_Arabia
And, oh...you know that „burning books“- thingy…
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall09/jawad_n/traditionalmedia.html
And racism...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Saudi_Arabia
Purges and taking out rivals was a sure indication that Hitler was getting rid of the internal opposition to his agenda. Obviously, everybody knows where that goes...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-crackdown-corruption-or-critics/
Of course, even during the Olympics, he was just presenting his best side, cheating us with a few cheap tricks. Obviously, these „cheap propaganda tricks“ were only created to fool the international world. So obvious, right?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-women-driving.html
He went about, intimidating little neighboring states….
https://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-threatens-block-qatar-s-land-sea-borders-541971.html
The Spanish Civil War and the Legion Condor was simply „honing skills“. Obviously just training to attack somebody else. Why didn‘t anybody stop him?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian%E2%80%93led_intervention_in_Yemen
And that increase in arms was a dead giveaway. Honestly! Let‘s invade now, before they get even stronger…
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/05/20/donald-trump-signs-tremendous-deal-with-saudi-arabia/
And remember what happened when the world started to criticise the aggression? Yes, he left the League of Nations, because it was bad.
Of course, the ENTIRE world was wrong, not the own actions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_United_Nations
And when he makes "new friends" with Stalin, he's only looking for a free back. Obviously, he'll come back for Stalin later. Didn't they read Mein Kampf?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/israel-saudi-arabia-relations/
Oh, and did I mention war?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/07/the-first-saudi-iranian-war-will-be-an-even-fight/
Quattar and Al Jazeera is in the way....
They don't follow orders...
They might report the truth....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gibransaliba Because there are some who wish to "rule the world".
Google The American Century, or the new version of that: PNAC, The Project for the New American Century.
This is real, not contested information (in other words, not the typical "conspiracy theory").
The proponents of PNAC advocate for it openly.
It is a continuation of the
1) Manifest Destiny (expansion West), which morphed into the...
2) Monroe Doctrine (The rule over both Americas)
3) the "war of choice" WW1 (expansion into the Pacific)
4) WW2 which was about "contested" China (afterwards becoming the "alpha male" of the Western democracies, NATO, etc.)
5) Cold War (becoming the world's only remaining superpower).
Which way are the borders moving?
WW2 was fought because China was "contested" between the west (support of Nationalism/Chiang Kai Sheck), Japan (Manchuria/SunnYat Sen) and the SU (Communism/support of Mao).
World War III isn't an option, so the only way to expand us by proxy.
Today, the ME is a proxy war sh*thole of violence and war, same as China was during the 1930s, 1940s, up to around 1950 (the commies won that battle).
Today, the ME is contested, and the frontlines are the USA (alpha male), Israel and Saudi Arabia on one side, with a few minors.
This will most likely end up with Russia, Iran, Turkey, China (maybe even India/Pakistan if they can sort out Kashmir) on the other side, and a new cold war.
Just like China became an object of desire for outside powers in early-1930's, today the ME is fought over by outside powers.
1
-
1
-
@thetruth495 In the regards to "single state", the answer is yes.
Because "power" is a concept that goes way beyond sheer numbers of armed forces. It is a concept which embraces a much wider field, to include infrastructure, number of factories, innovation, diverse industrial base, access to raw materials, etc., etc. Something as simple a factor as "education" is an often ignored factor (note, a well-educated population, is a source of better soldiers in modern war, or the "quality vs. quantity"-debate...in WW1, "quality" won on the Eastern Front).
Notice that during WW1, despite the majority of forces initially concentrated west (Schlieffen Plan), and later the 2-front war dividing German strength, Russia first failed in "steamrolling to Berlin", as well as later on showing itself to be incapable of withstanding the better strategy/planning/training, etc. of German military (of course, in conjunction with allies, mainly A-H and Bulgaria).
Even seen as "blocks", the Dual Alliance was still considered more advanced, and having the edge vs. the Franco-Russian Military Alliance (without GB).
London/GB/Empire was nominally on the "side" of France and Russia, but what London really always fought for, was to "balance powers" on the continent.
In 1914, the fear was simply that the Schlieffen Plan could succeed and "win by Christmas", Germany create a "fait accompli", and GB would then be left out of European power politics (on the continent) altogether.
It was already foreseen that if Germany "went through Belgium", that it would most likely be a "short war", and that Germany could then win such a "short war".
That's the entire reasoning for setting up Belgium as a "tool" of grand strategy.
Of course, if Germany had not invaded Belgium, the question would then not be if GB joined the war, but when.
Had the Central Powers winning, GB would have joined Russia/France anyway (based on some or other pretext).
And...if Russia and France were winning, and it looked as if Germany/A-H might collapse? Then London would have taken measures to ensure that wouldn't happen. Yes, even join Germany, based on some or other different pretext. The only thing which would then have changed was "the narrative"...
(Evil "frogs". Remember "Fashoda"? Remember Afghanistan? Remember? Remember...the pockets of the propagandists are deeper than the ocean.)
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 London did not make binding alliances with any continental power.
It "hopped on the scale", this side or that, whichever way the wind blew. And so they hopped their way into extinction.
Germany needed a committed alliance partner, willing to offer a full alliance at eye level. As long as such an offer was not forthcoming, Berlin would wait.
@Bolivar Holstein, 1901 re. British offers.
"Wir können warten, die Zeit läuft für uns. Ein vernünftiges Abkommen mit England, d.h. ein solches, wo der beinahe sicheren Kriegsgefahr, welcher wir uns dabei aussetzen, gebührende Rechnung getragen wird, läßt sich meines Erachtens erst dann erreichen, wenn das Gefühl der Zwangslage in England allgemeiner als heute geworden ist."
Translation:
"We can wait, time is running in our favor. A sensible agreement with England, one in which the almost certain danger of war to which we are thereby exposing [ourselves] is properly taken into account, can, in my opinion, only be achieved when the feeling of the predicament in England has become more general than it is today."
Translation from:
m(dot)bpb(dot)de/geschichte/deutsche-geschichte/kaiserreich/139653
A wishy-wishy "maybe yes/maybe no"-fwiendship, or a few "pwomises" were not going to save Germany from a 2-front war.
Only an honest, firm, and legally binding alliance would and could guarantee that.
1
-
@bolivar2153 It was not as much the question of what London offered, but rather the suspicion of why now?.
After some 8 years (1890-1898) of trying for a treaty/alliance of sorts, suddenly London came with "an offer". Weird, just as GB was at odds with France (Sudan/Egypt/the eve of the Fashoda Crisis), London was suddenly...cough, cough..."interested in a deal".
Really? What suddenly happened to Splendid Isolation?
Furthermore, tensions with Russia were also not settled yet (Persia, the "warm water port"-narrative).
So Berlin's suspicion was warranted.
As I already stated in the other thread. They were not going to offer Germany as a "lighting rod" to attract Russia and/or French venom, should there have been a war over any of these issues.
Furthermore, certainly no non-binding "let's be best fwiends"-bs, which the "London lords" could rescind whenever it suited them.
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 "In a speech at Lewes on 26 February 1896, Viscount Goschen said "We are said to be isolated, but I say that which I know when I say that we have but to hold out our hands and our isolation will terminate, and we shall receive welcome into several groups of other Powers. . . . In the modern system of European politics we could at any moment, I believe, make such alliances as we chose . . . Our isolation is not an isolation of weakness, or of contempt for ourselves: it is deliberately chosen; the freedom to act as we choose in any circumstances that may arise.""
[From Globalsecurity]
They thought that eternally "hopping on this side of the scale, then the other", to play "balancing games", to their own advantage (imperialism) could last forever and ever.
The "London lords" thought they were in a superior geographical location, and could determine the conditions for "joining whichever alliance they wanted".
Turns out they were wrong.
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Your query in comment 2:
"The German foreign minister and, from 1900, chancellor, Bernhard, Fürst (prince) von Bülow, shared the kaiser’s and Holstein’s ambitions for world power. If, as Germany’s neo-Rankean historians proclaimed, the old European balance of power was giving way to a new world balance, [see below, my final comment] then the future would surely belong to the Anglo-Saxons (British Empire and America) and Slavs (Russian Empire) unless Germany were able to achieve its own place in the sun. Bülow agreed that “our future lies on the water.” German and British interests were simply irreconcilable. What Britain sought was German help in reducing Franco-Russian pressure on the British Empire and defending the balance of power. What Germany sought was British neutrality or cooperation while Germany expanded its own power in the world. Bülow still believed in Holstein’s “free hand” policy of playing the other powers off against each other and accordingly placed a high price on German support and invited Britain to join the Triple Alliance as a full military partner. Understandably, the British declined to underwrite Germany’s continental security."
[Britannica]
Well.
Seeing how things turned out for "Empire", one can only say "too bad they didn't".
Shall we play the "EPISODE I thru EPISODE V"-game again? LOL.
1
-
@bolivar2153 Here.
Just to remind you :-)
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
Note, that EPISODE I came about because London refused binding, mutually agreed upon treaties/alliances, on eye level, with continental powers (incl. Germany).
Your answer to EPISODE V will be (again), that you'll be there to "cheer the British Empire on it's way into ruin" (sic./Bolivar).
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Yes, but you are forgetting the background.
GB suddenly realized it had no friends.
The 2 "enemies" London was antagonizing in various parts of the world (Africa, Asia) were Germany's direct neighbors. Germany shared a common border with both Russia and France, and as the article clearly states, yes: both sides were suspicious of the other's motivations. Berlin especially so, since the self-confessed "just isolating ourselves"-lords in London were suddenly prepared to engage in a treaty, just as trouble was on the horizon, whereas for the previous 8 years they weren't.
The British formulation didn't account for Germany's precarious situation, wedged between Russia/France.
In various scenarios, the British formulation would leave Germany high and dry, should Germany become entangled in a war it did not want.
1) in case Russia provoked and attacked Austria-Hungary, after some or other event in the Balkans (in case it escalated, or Germany came to the defense of her alliance partner, London could argue that Berlin "provoked France", if France obliged to fulfill her treaty obligations to Russia)
2) see above: if Russia attacked A-H and France attacked Germany, there would be a "technically" not covered = Germany not attacked by 2 or more powers, but only 1 (in case it escalated, causing a wider war in Central Europe, again London could argue that "Germany started/provoked it").
Finally, most importantly:
3) what does the word "provoke" even mean? We discussed this before, in another thread somewhere. Does it mean a triviality, like the Ems Telegram? Or, "shooting first"? It's not defined by international law, and therefore can only lead to...ahem..."differences of opinion".
Best to leave it out completely. See the treaties "smart Bismarck" made. They didn't include such opinionated emotional clauses re. "guilt".
1
-
POWER. DOESN'T. CARE.
Maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are trapped in a "divide and rule world", and it has been all about PROFITS and CONTROL over the people.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join up...
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Uhm, no.
Nobody "had to phone Speer".
Especially not from London, rofl
Simply look at the effects war was having in the West (Nazi Germany/Italy). Simple as that.
So, no.
Don't "phone Speer" LOL
Analyze the battlefields:
Submarines are the problem? Bomb the yards.
Submarines sink thousands of merchant ships? Use the heavies (4 engined bombers) as escorts.
Rommel is being reinforced via the Med? Use heavies to bomb Italian ports.
Americans suggest "let's bomb key industries"? OK, agree to it. Bomb a few key industries, again and again.
Nazis have no oil? Bomb the few refineries they have. Again and again.
Nazi Germany uses riverways as transport? Mine them. Again and again. Always somewhere else. There are loads of navigable rivers. Not even heavy flak to worry about...
German tanks are better? Aim for the heavy industrial plants, irrelevant of whether one misses most of the times.
Germany's main source of Tungsten is Portugal? Good. Offer the Portuguese 50% more than the price Nazis pay, and buy it all up, irrelevant of if you need it or not...
I could literally go on and on.
But here is your problem.
You are simply too fixed on the premise that "everything we ever did, and everything we ever do, is ALWAYS right" (aka "argument from authority") or maybe "well, maybe we made a few LITTLE LITTLE mistakes, but my leaders were smart...blah, blah."
No they weren't.
Dumb as pigsh*t.
Subscribed to their own faulty reasoning.
And that is why they lost their "empire".
Well...Brits at least. The American Century and their commie "best fwiends" were the real winners.
1
-
@bolivar2153 You don't have to "destroy entire cities" to achieve everything you just wrote.
No, I wrote "mine the rivers".
Mine them from as low an altitude as possible, because there wouldn't be flak along thousands of miles of rivers and canals.
That would follow the logic of "searching out weak spots", rather than send men against heavily defended areas like city centers.
Yes, spread out the attacks over a large surface area, since the Axis lacked the resources to effectively defend everything they had "gobbled up" in 1939 to 1942, during the "good times" (sic.) when the Allies were weak.
They had overreached themselves in their own greed for territory, which they could now (1941/1942) not defend effectively from air attack.
When I write "again and again", of course not the same target every day. Read Speer. He criticized that the long duration between attacks gave him more than enough time to repair, carry out improvements, streamline production, etc. When I wrote "again and again" I obviously meant to bomb a target, observe it, and then bomb it again immediately if repairs are being carried out. All with smaller forces (say, 50-60 bombers), meaning that instead of one" "spectacular" attack of a 1,000 bombers, carrying out 30 attacks with 30 - 50 bombers per attack, over an extremely widely dispersed land area from Norway to the Spanish border (forcing the LW to spread their 1 million men Flak units more and more).
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 An Anson was an effective convoy escort.
Did you know that?
When an aircraft showed up, submarines dove away, meaning that in most cases they would lose contact to the convoy, or laboriously have to catch up again, massively blunting their effectivity.
But, hey.
No, not surprising that you didn't know that puny Ansons, and old outdated Swordfish made for excellent convoy escorts, which in 1940 banished the threat of U-Boat attacks where ever they operated (se the Black Gap narrative).
So would Lancs, and Halifaxes, flying (easily) hundreds of operations over the Atlantic, rather than being blown out of the sky over Germany after just a few missions.
1
-
@bolivar2153 I'm not talking about the CBO.
I'm only talking about the folly of "flattening Germany", which lead to the post war decline of GB/British Empire.
I'm fine with strategic bombing, of "valid" targets (chosen as, and defined as such by the aiming point of the attack), irrelevant of "failure" or "success".
How do you know that the decision to "flatten Germany", and therefore the majority of RAF Bomber Command sorties, "shortened the war" by >insert whatever pulled out the a** number of months<?
How can you even prove this?
Right.
You can't...
Nice try ;-)
What would have shortened the war, would have been aiming at factories, like Henshell in Kassel, in October 1943, destroying the plant, and the only Tiger Tank production in Germany.
That, and hundreds of attacks like that, would have shortened the war, decreased the misery of thousands of Allied soldiers, and hey...even Stalin would've been happy ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Your grandfather might have appreciated, or not have appreciated, or probably didn't know, the fact that he was never the intended target (aiming point) of any LW attack during the famous "Blitz".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w884E0qr8uk
Watch 11 minutes into the documentary in the link, re. the original LW bombing maps. The aiming point of these attacks were the docks, and Liverpool's casualties were "collateral", true to the word.
No one was killed (at this point, in 1940), because he/she was the intended target of an attack.
That only "started later, in reprisal, after attacks like Lübeck, Rostock, and Cologne.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl/Historian)
Today, the USA has practically admitted that it misuses smaller nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the current war in the Ukraine:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.” Taken from a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region. In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script". Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" or "using little nations" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
Some things never change...
"The policy which Britain has been pursuing for the last two centuries has brought her prosperity and greatness. After each victory, Britain seems, on the surface to have gained for herself no advantage whatever; all she did, she claimed to be an act of international chivalry and justice but a deeper analysis of British statesmen's claims reveals that they never speak the truth. Britain's key policy is to attack the strongest country with the help of weaker countries and then to join the weakened enemy in checking the growth of other countries and so on, and so on. British foreign policy has remained basically unchanged for two centuries. When Britain befriends or colonizes another country, the purpose is not to maintain a cordial friendship for the sake of friendship but to utilize that country as a tool to fight all threats to her supremacy. Therefore Britain always remains in a commanding position by making other countries fight her wars while she herself reaps the fruits of victory." Taken from The Vital Problem of China by Sun Yat-Sen, 1917
Should we eternally defend these long-dead historical "lords" who sacrificed pawns so their own crumbling "Empire" could survive a few more years?
Whilst these "fine gentlemen" in suites and bowler hats, scrambled to invent tax havens to safeguard the riches they had looted and raked in for a few hundred years, they used emotional arguments to cause outrage in times of crises, or sent the lower classes scrambling for the muddy trenches in times of war...
These tax havens they created spared their own obscene wealth, while the middle-classes and poor "masses" bore the burden of "Empire".
These fine elites sacrificed pawns following a "priority list": first to go were the "pawns" abroad, then followed by such in the own country, while skimming the cream off the top for themselves.
After WW1, they already knew "Empire" was on the way out, but preferred playing the game (strategies) with human lives just a little longer.
(Evidence: Search for The Spider's Web documentary on the Timeline Channel, here on YT).
Though it isn't possible to say when the American Century will go down in the same way as the British Empire once did, I will predict what will happen.
Maybe it will last another dozen years.
Maybe two-dozen.
Maybe even another fifty years...
Who knows?
Whatever.
The first "hedge fund manager"-types are already betting against the US dollar as the world reserve currency.
Such "hewoes" and "patwiots", lol
They will take their accrued "assets", and and the obscene wealth and profits raked in over the past American Century, to tax havens WHEN America's "century" implodes: leaving millions of middle-class and poor Americans to rub their eyes while wondering wtf happened...
History will repeat itself, unless the hegemon changes its deceitful ways (Google: "What does the Bible say about deceitful friends", to discover how history repeats itself in endless cycles).
The Founding Fathers once described London as “rich, proud, hectoring, swearing, squibbing, carnivorous” (Jefferson), therefore the perfect type of character flaws in a nation's leadership which one can "smear honey around the mouth", then infiltrate and then overpower: Which is what the USA did after 1895, "starting" with the first Venezuela Crisis.
Didn't anybody notice?
Washington DC sold out the "protection" they had offered to a "little nation" called Venezuela in the form of the Monroe Doctrine, as a sacrificial gift to London, and a "friendship" which could drive a wedge between arising European attempts at more unity.
Nope.
Nobody noticed.
Today, the new rich, proud, hectoring, swearing, squibbing, carnivorous "rulers of the world" in Washington DC are imitating exactly what they critized a quarter of a century before.
1
-
The advocacy for "total war", more "total" than one can imagine, counts for all...
The intended complete destruction of Germany as a "power", and removal of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe turned out to be a massive "shot in the own foot" for the West.
The 12 million Germans which were expelled from Eastern Europe, actually protected the West, and by extension, also the British Empire.
By their acquiescence to removing them as a "sphere of influence", London no longer had the leverage to enforce treaties, or protect own interests.
Really as simple as that...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angry about Mers el Kebir and had slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
There was nothing left to "balance" with...
"In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good." Sun Tzu, The Art of War
That's just how it goes if the eternal "balancing" games on the continent by the alpha go south. Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe/the world herself.
An entirely and easily avoidable WW1, lead to a (sadly) unavoidable WW2 which although it was declared wisely, was implemented disastrously...
1
-
1
-
1
-
She didn't just simply abstain from voting.
Doing so, was within her rights and nobody objected to it.
PragerU is putting a spin on this story, to incite outrage.
Here is what happened.
She didn't merely chose not to vote (perfectly ok), but linked a political decision she took, to her own personal convictions.
That, should be frowned upon, because the USA is based on the separation of church and state. That means, as a leader, you're not supposed to value personal convictions higher than the law or founding documents of the USA, like the Constitution, or The Declaration of Independence. Note here, that it guarantees every American (not only Christians) the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness".
We should be constantly reminded not to stand in others way (within the laws of the land) who pursue happiness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One side, is setting the stage for war.
"Somebody" is in the way, but I won't mention names :-)
Somebody needs a justification and a "WMD"- reason to invade...
Somebody is desperately trying to point the finger elsewhere, hoping dumb people won't notice....
Let's look at a historical parallel:
All throughout the 1920s and 1930s, there was this dangerous ideology which threatened us all…
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Wahhabism,-terrorism-and-the-'confessions'-of-a-Saudi-prince-43465.html
And then Dachau and other slave camps. What kind of people would enslave their neighbors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Saudi_Arabia
And, oh...you know that „burning books“- thingy…
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall09/jawad_n/traditionalmedia.html
And racism...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Saudi_Arabia
Purges and taking out rivals was a sure indication that Hitler was getting rid of the internal opposition to his agenda. Obviously, everybody knows where that goes...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-crackdown-corruption-or-critics/
Of course, even during the Olympics, he was just presenting his best side, cheating us with a few cheap tricks. Obviously, these „cheap propaganda tricks“ were only created to fool the international world. So obvious, right?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-women-driving.html
He went about, intimidating little neighboring states….
https://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-threatens-block-qatar-s-land-sea-borders-541971.html
The Spanish Civil War and the Legion Condor was simply „honing skills“. Obviously just training to attack somebody else. Why didn‘t anybody stop him?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian%E2%80%93led_intervention_in_Yemen
And that increase in arms was a dead giveaway. Honestly! Let‘s invade now, before they get even stronger…
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/05/20/donald-trump-signs-tremendous-deal-with-saudi-arabia/
And remember what happened when the world started to criticise the aggression? Yes, he left the League of Nations, because it was bad.
Of course, the ENTIRE world was wrong, not the own actions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_United_Nations
And when he makes "new friends" with Stalin, he's only looking for a free back. Obviously, he'll come back for Stalin later. Didn't they read Mein Kampf?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/israel-saudi-arabia-relations/
Oh, and did I mention war?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/07/the-first-saudi-iranian-war-will-be-an-even-fight/
Quattar and Al Jazeera is in the way....
They don't follow orders...
They might report the truth....
1
-
1
-
@jb3883 The "arc" stretches far beyon´d that.
Divide and rule can be revealed to have existed for a long time, and even classical historical cases bear clear hints regarding the existence of such strategies. According to Lindy's Law, things which have been around for a long time, tend to stay around for a lot longer. In the analogy of the jigsaw puzzle, we finally come to the "blue sky" as the most difficult of all analyses. Using the previous examples in history of "history rhyming" and information combined with reasoning, to make future most likely predictions. Of course nobody can predict the future, but since geopolitics and grand strategy follow standing policies which are mostly known today, the directions the future might steer are known. Individual decisions are not known, and are the inconsistent factor which makes future predictions at best educated guesses.
The hegemons go about setting up tectonic plates as systems of united power, and the fracture zones between these plates are then the "earthquake zones" of future conflict.
FRACTURE ZONE 1: EASTERN EUROPE
This fracture stretches from the North Pole, via Scandinavia to the MENA region (see below). In case of the most likely scenario of an officially declared "2nd Cold War", Eastern Europe and Russia as the fracture zone between Western- and Central Europe, and this time it is China which will need to be contained (in 1914 it was Germany/Austria-Hungary). Limited resources must be directed away from the western parts of Europe towards Central Europe to create powerhouses here for the functions of "battering rams" and "icebreakers". The new direct encirclers of Russia in the west being Poland, the Ukraine, and the Baltic States must grow in power...
FRACTURE ZONE 2: THE WAR IN THE UKRAINE
As an extension of the above, there is another fracture running through Central Europe and Russia. The critical question with regards to the war in the Ukraine today: why should Germany step forward, and do more than the alpha Washington, D.C., or any other state, especially the nuclear powers? The attempt to coerce through "shaming" (strategy) to get a non-nuclear power to step forward to face a much larger power, resembles the attempt to use sheep to encircle a bear: the effect can only be "mincemeat". Such dubious attempts in strategy to set up "lightning rods" to attract the venom of another power, and direct the "strike" away from the own core, also have historical examples, as stated in the previous chapters. In 1939/40 Plan R4 was the British and French attempt to draw the bull away from the own core heartlands, by holding the red cape in front of Scandinavia, as easily spotted by the strategists here. Unfortunately, telling history the correct way is sacrificed for the sake of alliances, since these weak powers know that the powers trying go misuse them (grand strategy), are also the only ones who could save them in an emergency situation.
FRACTURE ZONE 3: NORTH AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST AS THE PERIPHERY OF EUROPE
This region will remain in an eternal state of war, unless local leaders can finally unite. This fracture goes from the Atlantic, via North Africa towards the Indian Ocean. "To establish any mode to abolish war, however advantageous it might be to nations, would be to take from such government the most lucrative of its branches." - Thomas Paine. That was not only true when he stated it. The revolving door between industry and government, or as Eisenhower stated in his farewell address to the nation, the Military Industrial Complex, will keep on sending men to war.
FRACTURE ZONE 4: RISING POWERS IN ASIA
This fracture goes from the North Pole, via Japan, Philippines, Thailand and the Indian subcontinent further westwards towards the MENA area. The big question today is whether China and India will allow post 16th/17th Century history to repeat itself. Will their leaderships bow to pressure, and allow outsiders repeat the divide and rule policies they had already played 300 or 400 years ago? Will outside powers again be able to enter the stage, set up internal and domestic systems against each other as a repeat of age-old colonial practices, and be able to steer Russia, China, and India against each other, so that one overpowers the other (strategy).
On such fracture zones, expect eternal strive as revealed by past history: gravitiating minor powers (like Serbia before 1914), becoming turncoats with regime change opps (Serbia 1903).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Random Stranger OK. So I read from that that you wouldn't want the same for your own country, what Israel is doing...
So you admire wealth?
It wouldn't bother you if the wealth you admire comes from theft?
In 1956 (Suez), and 1967 (6-day War), Israel waged illegal wars of aggression, which included "land grabs".
Since 1945, wars of conquest are forbidden under international law. Israel started these wars using lies, in a similar way as 2003 was a war based on a lie (WMD, Saddam about to attack neighbors).
Unlike 1967, 2003 was not a "land grab". In other words, no territory was stolen.
Israel, however, STILL sits on occupied territory.
Would you admire a crook who turns up in your neighborhood with nice clothes and a big car?
1
-
Random Stranger OK.
Fine by me.
Just remember this.
If one directs a shitload full of money and innovation at a project, it is bound to succeed (as long as it is technically feasible).
That is why states like Oman, Dubai, or Qutar are similarly successful as Israel, which has received trillions of dollars in aid from various western powers over the past fifty years or so...
What you see in this video, could also have been achieved by a Palestinian state, similarly funded for fifty years, and in a situation of peace (no duress, outside meddling aka "divide and rule", war, or political intrigues, wars for oil, etc.).
This is what the west (and Israel) has been doing to the rest of the Middle East for 100 years....
Just remember, how the west uses money as a weapon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these gentlemen do.
America's allies and enemies in Europe are still being turned against each other and then burned to ensure that this inequality remains.
This is how “divide and conquer” is implemented.
They pit European and Eurasian nations against each other. The UK and US playbook for more than 100 years. Read Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
Money is their vehicle to allocate resources.
It's the physical resources of the planet which are limited, and who CONTROLS the flow of printable money, controls the flow of resources.
That is how those in CONTROL keep some "down" and others "out" of their own systems of gain.
Obviously, there are not enough resources for the entire planet to live the same lifestyle as those systems in CONTROL.
It has nothing to do with "meritocracy" but is a PREMEDITATED strategy, and how well your systems do financially or systemically (countries/companies/etc.), depends on their LOCATION ON THE MAP (geopolitics), or whether they bow down and "lick boots" or not.
1
-
1
-
POWER. DOESN'T. CARE.
Maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are trapped in a "divide and rule world", and it has been all about PROFITS and CONTROL over the people.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@69Solo Yes, that poster above is an apologist for settler colonialism, and in the Levant it "started" long before 1948.
For 100 years, settler colonists (Irgun, Lehi, Palmach, etc.) cooperating with the hegemon, carried out such practices of harassment, trying to coerce the original inhabitants to flee so they could occupy the land.
A hundred years ago the British Empire dispatched psychos like Orde Wingate (Special Night Squads) who took pleasure in random shootings, or waterboarding opposition to the British Empire in oil, sending the tortured back to their villages to report about the actions of their oppressors.
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron Bushell have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
*Boycott corporations *
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Alexdorio-kc9yf Imperialism.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-----------------------------------------------------
1
-
1
-
@Barra NZ Confusing "causes" and "effects" is one of the basic logical fallacies.
In fact it is easy to misdirect and point fingers when it comes to "who started it".
One can simply gather up a bunch of random evidence, and then make theories (see "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy").
Anybody can do that.
Fact?
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy.
No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords.
Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war.
An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London made "temporary best friends", not lasting alliances.
Before 1871, a divided Central Europe, and the millions of subjects living here, were useful to those on the fringes (esp. to the UK and France), since the rulers in this disunity offered useful "tools" which could be allied with or "hopped onto" to effect a short-term solution in a crises or war (usually diplomatic, but also wars).
The above is also known and acknowledged as the "not accept a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, in other words not speculative or disputed.
London made every single German citizen "the rival/enemy" as a matter of policy, irrelevant of how crises/wars started, or who fired the first diplomatic/military shots, as long as Germany remained the strongest continental power/alliance.
That came first.
All these London policy standpoints (Splendid Isolation" = not "making eternal friends") were of course classical cases of "divide and rule" on the "elites/establishment"-level.
The trick of dividing and ruling is to create just enough content = complacency to settle things down in the short term, but at the same time enough tension to ensure future strife/division. The "divider" creates default "favorites" (favoratism) and default "others", and "winners and losers", which they can then steer against each other if they wish, or unite if it's convenient. Sometimes planned, sometimes the result of unfortunate prior mistakes, but then exploited.
Also note in such "games": there are no "eternal friends" or "eternal enemies".
There are no "eternal rights" or "eternal wrongs".
Only eternal interests.
Or, as A.J.P. Taylor would say: keep the continent in an eternal state of tension.
Once established, they started brainwashing young Brits to hate/dislike Germans and their leaders.
The technical term for this is "priming" and "conditioning".
From wiki:
"Invasion literature (also the invasion novel) is a literary genre that was popular in the period between 1871 and the First World War (1914–1918). The invasion novel first was recognized as a literary genre in the UK, with the novella The Battle of Dorking: Reminiscences of a Volunteer (1871), an account of a German invasion of England...."
Note.
1871
What happened in 1871?
Oh right.
Germany united, became the continent's strongest power, and was immediately considered as "a hostile nation" by "the few" (lords), before anything else even happened.
Any majority opinions by people which might or might not have existed at the time did not matter.
Of course as time progressed and the people gained more and more say in matters (much to the agony of the conservative leaders/money elites), the ways of "divide and rule" also adapted/morphed: to set up the self-reinforcing process of "priming" and "conditioning" of "the masses" which needed to turned against each other, the means of literature was created. As more people became literate, and as print became cheaper and cheaper (reaching larger and larger parts of the population as time passed), and the evolving liberty meant that a ruler could not simply go into a village and say "you, you, you, grab your pitchfork, there is a war going on" as time progressed (say, the 19th century).
On a sidenote, today this process of "priming/conditioning" of the (mostly) young and inexperienced, is well-known when it became public how the Pentagon funds Hollywood movies which depict "certain people" as enemies. Of course, had Rambo and movies existed in the late 19th Century, he would've "fought Injuns", but it just so happens that he "fought commies" (Cold War) together with "our best fwiends the Muslims". Also movies with lotsa "Mexican looking types" (War on Drugs). Eternal cycles of friends one day, enemies the next...
In the late-19th century, with the German economy growing, this was not coincidence of course.
From another thesis: "Politicisation of a cultural stereotype: Germany and Germans in English literature
"[The] description of the romantic character of Germans stood for an interpretation which had already reduced Germany's complex political reality... In the words of Robert Browning, the Germany of the early century was similar to 'a tall, old, quaint irregular town'..."
So Germans were "a quaint village" while they were "temporary/usefull best fwiends".
How cute...
By 1878.
"This was also accompanied by a similar change in political satire: in the Punch of March 1878, Bismarck appeared as a Germanic tribal chief suppressing his inferiors and displaying the `Vae Victis' (`Woe to the losers') as his new political motto. The Fortnightly Review of December 1878 accordingly commented on the Iron Chancellor: 'The German of the primitive time survives in him; or rather, he appears among us like the God Thor of the Scandinavian Olympus, bearing in mind his iron hammer, and unchaining the tempests' (de Laveleye1878: 786)."
Both from JÖRN LEONHARD Construction and Perception of National Images: Germany and Britain, 1870 - 1914 (available for download as PDF file)
Weird.
What a coincidence that the "cultured German" of the Dichter and Denker (Poets and Philosophers) turned into the barbarian "eternal Jermin" just as they united and become the continent's strongest power in 1871, replacing France as the "default hate group."
Was the above purely intent?
Not necessarily.
Authors, journalists, the first movie makers, cartoonists and other contemporary "influencers" at the time who "jumped on the bandwaggon" didn't necessarily have evil intent.
Wishing to simply "pay the bills" is not "evil". An effect of capitalism, not evil intent.
In GB this process of "priming" and "conditioning" in the form of "invasion scare literature" (a term which can be googled for more info) against the Germans started almost the same time as they united (1871), formed an unbreakable unity (1879), and took over the role of "most likely to achieve continental hegemony" from France.
Before that, "the Germans" were "best fwiends" of course...
Was the above "steered" or "a conspiracy theory"?
No, because that is the great thing about "free and liberal societies".
One doesn't have to convince every single person.
It is sufficient to convince just enough to get the ball rolling.
Nothing new of course either, nor is it "conspiracy theory"-nonsense, since the process is self-reinforcing.
If it sells (popularism), it will get copied.
It is not necessarilly "steered" by dark-hooded figures in "back rooms".
Once the ball rolls, the rest will follow in the wake.
1
-
@Barra NZ They actually did have roads and schools. Study some history. Also intact societies.
If left unhindered (no foreign wars or invasions), with decent and fair trade with foreign countries in place, guilded by laws and treaties, what would have stopped Africa and Asia from developing according to own priorities?
No "strawman" there at all.
History isn't set in stone.
Any change somewhere along the timeline of events would have effected all following events.
Simply stating that "nothing we ever did (colonialism) ever had any long-term effect" is a lazy argument, easily countered.
Same goes for the "everything we ever did always had only good intentions" which is also a lazy argument, easily countered. Fact? Apart from a few philantropists, nobody went 3,000 miles away because he wanted a better life for "brown people" in the racist times back then. Own profit, own glory, own benefits stood in the foreground and the "crumbs" that fell down which you point at today, back-patting the own back, were just that: crumbs. The riches were extracted, and little was left behind.
1
-
1
-
Not a law but a strategy of the elites.
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally. Here is where khalyava fits in. It is favoratism by money, similar to the concepts of "freebie" and "getting something for nothing" in the West, thereby buying the favored group's loyalty.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because if you don't learn from history, you'll fall for the same trick again and again and again and again....
Yes, because British elites did not advocate war "because of Belgium", but because of a policy the lords in London had decided upon loooong before the Kaiser was "building ships", and "wanted colonies".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
A policy called Balance of Power, which practically dictated that GB would always join the weaker side, irrelevant of "right or wrong", and the only way GB could have realistically stayed out of the continental war about to unfold, was to abstain from the selfappointed role of "balancer" for the continent.
It was British leaders, deciding in London, and this free choice had nothing to do with anything any continental leaders did, or didn't do.
Why did GB join WW1?
As simple as asking "Would GB have stayed out, under any circumstance?" To which the answer is no.
The choice of making an entire people an enemy by default, long before they had even done anything to deserve the status of "enemy", had far reaching effects...
2003 anybody? Bush and lapdog Blair?
How'd that turn out?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wilhelm is often compared to Bismarck.
An interesting "episode" regarding "duplicity" and the way European states interacted at the time, occured in the late-1870s.
Bismarck stepped forward and offered himself as the "honest broker" (Congress of Berlin) to avoid a potential war between the saber-rattling London and St Petersburg, because of the after effects of Russo-Ottoman War of 1877/78 (San Stefano).
As a "thank you" for his efforts as peacemaker and for avoiding war, Bismarck attracted the wrath of the Russian Tzar. Russian anger for getting cheated out of the spoils of this war between Russia and the "evil Ottomans who were oppressing Christians in the Balkans" (the usual widespread "appeal to emotion" for the masses, to cover up the real aims of wars: rule/domination/interests/territory/power/etc., and in this case, St Petersburg heading for the Dardanelles), was suddenly refocussed from London onto Berlin.
Bismarck had triggered a deep feeling in St Petersburg of betrayal: after Russian neutrality had done a large share of "enabling" Bismarck's German unification, St Petersburg now felt that it was obviously time for a "reward" of sorts. Berlin should in return, "enable" further Russian expansion south at the expense of the Ottoman Empire (Dardanelles, the "warm water port"-narrative) and support St Peterburg against British, French or Austrian-Hungarian protests as they realized their long-sought ports outside of the Black Sea ("Greater Bulgaria").
Even worse, while London walked away with a reward (Cypress), Berlin got a crumpled Three Kaiser League and an angry Tzar breathing down their necks. His efforts for securing peace between Russia and Great Britain, resulted in an enhanced risk of war for millions of people in Eastern/Central Europe. All exactly as the "pat our own backs" lords of London (Disraeli/Salisbury) intended. The intention of London throwing their weight into the after-effects of the Russo-Ottoman War, and by supporting the "bad guys" (Ottoman Empire) during this war, had from the outset been to drive a wedge between the "three kaisers", which were perceived to be a threat to the own British Empire.
On analysis, it was a London move to prevent a potentally possible alliance forming out of the existing agreement between the "three kaisers"(Germany/Russia/Austria-Hungary)by driving a wedge between the three.
Is that how London rewarded their peacemakers?
Bismarck: "Once bitten, twice shy..."
The apprentice Wilhelm: "What conclusions can we draw from the above?"
Strangely enough, the same actions by Wilhelm II (1905: the Morrocan "crisis" = avoid a potentially dangerous alliance forming) is interpreted by some historians as having an "evil", or "world conquering" intent, and is widely believed.
So how should we judge the attempt to drive a wedge between potentially dangerous alliances forming? "Evil", or "normal"? Surely it can't be both ;-)
Anyway...
After the Berlin Congress peacekeeping mission, Germany ended up in the vulnerable "middle of Europe", endangered by a 2-front war, with a shattered agreement and potentially without anybody to ally with at all. Fearfull visions of the days of Friedrich must have returned, and only the rapid action by Bismarck averted a disaster. Should Berlin have simply ignored Austria-Hungary's resulting weakness after the Three Kaiser League so rapidly dissolved, Vienna might have simply distanced themselves to look for a "good deal" elsewhere. Russia maybe? A war for Germany on three fronts? His very own agreement between the three empires and kaisers, to keep the peace and which was well within the scope of the "gentleman's agreement" of the Congress of Europe, was almost turned into a complete enciclement of the country whose leaders had stepped forward as "peacemaker".
Another example of the amorality of states.
Shame these British leaders did not live to see the day the American Century rammed London's "stiff upper lip" up where the sun don't shine, and took over the Empire's bestest and most profitable markets :-)
1
-
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics.
The real question that should be asked, and therefore the premise of any debate is: Was it wise at the time?
To which the simple answer is "no".
They ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better.
Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power.
In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. Washington DC used the same techniques (favouritism of specific "buck-catchers") that it had previously used to overpower European states and empires.
After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, so by 1945 the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided" (the role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative. "Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...)
London went from chief divider to chief of the divided in less than a quarter of a century.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nikki-d4c7p PART I
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), (§§§ see PART II, below) the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed." SOURCE: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive
US strategist in these think tanks lay out the scheme of what was going to be the new post-war reality, as a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" for the USA to control. Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under US supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.)
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." Note, all words in quotes were actual words used IN THIS OFFICIAL US DOCUMENT, and the thesis and its quoted sources can all be downloaded for free, from the www, and using these key words provided for your search engine.
---------------------------------
After around 1940, ... (quote) "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident (§§§footnote) – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. *Within this framework the role of France, Germany and ENGLAND of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations..."
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world."
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.", Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
1
-
@WTF00007 PART II
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
-----------------------------------
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
§§§footnote
If you wish to know more about exactly how the British Empire was "being dismantled," respond...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KeepAmericaGreat-vc3od As for your first comment, yes. I do understand how capitalism works.
In a capitalist system you can only earn well, if your fellow citizens have enough excess money (after paying for bare necessities) to buy your product. What you are referring to (demand for a product) doesn't work the same way.
"Housing" is a bare necessity.
Yes, houses and apartments are limited....by space.
If you run out of space, you can't simply go to a factory and build more "space", like you could with any other product (increased demand = increase production).
Yes, if you run out of space, like in big cities, prices will go up. The more money people have left over, the more the owners can charge for that limited space
So here is your dilemma.
Are you suggesting programme that "curbs" the population and cuts it back to the figures of boomer era? Honestly, so return to 250 000 000 Americans (the population back then) in order to drop the price for a limited product?
There are 350 000 000 Americans today, and most of them are competing for "space" in the areas the jobs are (cities, and city rim areas).
Simply freezing immigration won't do it. The 350 000 000 are already there.
Immigrants coming from Central America are not going to expensive big cities or city rim areas. They don't have enough to live there. So they are not "taking away" anything from you.
Second point about the masses of foreign rich people. Agreed.
That is really a contributing factor if rents go up, if foreigners buy up real estate as investments, only to have it standing empty 95% of the year.
That drives up the price in the popular big cities and the city rims.
Note here, in Spain there is a new law against "permanent vacancy" to combat exactly this problem. If implemented, it will scare off foreign buyers who don't intend living here, thereby decreasing the pressure on the market, thereby lowering the prices (less demand = lower prices).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beng2729 There is so much wrong with that argument, that I don't even know where to start. Your entire belief system (I assume you are a secular Jew) is based on false narrative.
So the Chinese were "crooks and thieves" (Tibet), so now Jews are also "allowed" to do the same? WTF?
[PS, I agree with you about occupied Tibet = occupied Palestine]
The Brits "promised" you land (WW1), and you didn't get all of the loot promised?
That correctly states exactly why the Balfour Declaration was a dirty backdoor deal between a gang of crooks. How much Jewish blood was actually spilled fighting for this "loot", promised to you by a crooked thieving Empire. If I remember correctly, about 10 (Jewish Legion).
And pointing out which people lived where, while it was the Ottoman Empire (one Empire, aka "state"), is about as dumb as stating how New Yorkers moving to L.A. ....uhm, yes. Why shouldn't they? It was their state. Why shouldn't people migrate within the borders of their own state? What a stupid stupid comparison to white people from Poland or Germany doing so after 1919. Poland or Germany was not the British Empire, if you wanted to insinuate that...
Archaeology as a "weapon"?
That argument is as dumb as pointing at stones in Mexico, Belize and Honduras, and saying that the Mayan Empire should now be reinstated there, and everybody who is not Maya should leave (ignoring 500 years of historical change). Your argument is even dumber (ignoring 2,000 years of historical change). Nuff said....
Dumb argument.
Decolonisation?
LMFAO
White people coming from Europe to the Levant, after having done NOTHING to liberate it from the Ottoman Empire, are now decolonising?
Did you know that I (born in Cape Town, and Roman Catholic) have a legal right to come to Israel, and receive a nice apartment on stolen land, money, free health care, free school for my kids? Did you know that?
In the meantime, people who were born there and lived there for generations are being squeezed out...
You must be an atheist....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
NATO is a "buck catcher" (Mearsheimer Theory) of the American Century.
I've got some bad news for all you "never gonna fight"-fanboys.
YOU. WILL. GO.
I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favourite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the leadup to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power, in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) with a GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION, and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed.
Whatever...
Guess who will live longest in the "nuclear winter"-scenario? (theory)
Short answer: NOT you (personally).
Longer answer: The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand).
The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction (MIRVs carrying nukes) as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
Because during the next war set up by the dividers of the world, from their assumed GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, it does not matter "who is right" and it does not even matter "who is left," loosely quoting Churchill, but rather in what state the leftovers are going to be in.
1
-
1
-
POWER. DOESN'T. CARE.
Maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are trapped in a "divide and rule world", and it has been all about PROFITS and CONTROL over the people.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
@mandie6022 As a mere individual, there is no need to feel ashamed. Here is one thing you can do...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If the USA gets a cold, the rest of the world gets the flu".
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Honestly, what more is there to say? USA: "If I get a cold, the rest of the world suffers worse." This must be the most pathetic acknowledgement of subjection I've read my entire life. If your global neighbor gets an economic "cold" and you can't simply send them a get well soon card and continue with your own life unaffected, you are already in a globalist entanglement. Analysts should stop calling out hypocrisy/lies/double standards and start naming it what it is.
It is a concerted effort of imperialism as practiced since ancient times, called divide and rule.
If a side has a position of power, it does not stand to lose from all the false narratives, deception, and bloodshed it finances around the world. If you have a geographical advantage, you don't make "mistakes" or one isn't simply a "hypocrite" but one actually implements a strategy of power, which are old proven Roman strategies.
These hypocrites face no disadvantages from being a hypocrite.
These liars are far away from the foundations of the disasters they had sown.
When the showdowns come, don't expect to see any of these "narrative shapers" on the front lines.
These hypocrites will send YOU there when the shtf.
This is divide and rule.
One takes over a sphere of influence one slow step at a time. When there is a response, blame the side being encroached upon, and use any action by the other side as excuse for further encroachment or escalation.
Others take the disadvantages, leaving the side in the position of power to sweep in and gain advantages.
"Never argue with fools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ― Mark Twain.
Me: "Never argue with imperialist/globalist tools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with inexperience."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
1
-
1
-
If any individual starts off by saying that "Hamas/Palestinians have no rights to..." then what such individuals are actually saying is that "Nelson Mandela/non-white majority (ANC/1960s thru 1980s/Cold War) had no rights to...", and then going a bit further back, saying that "Irgun, Lehi, the Stern Gang, or the Haganah had no rights to create Israel using terrorism in the first place...", per implication (and that Israel "had no rights to choose terrorist like Ben Gurion as leaders and founding fathers"). Further back as standpoint, that the "Revolutionary USA had no "rights" to stand up to imperialism, and choose a bunch of terrorists who killed hundreds of thousands, as founding fathers (British perspective of things about the local "terrorists/revolutionaries" going against their British laws, and British sense of justice, trying to take something away from them).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lastly, they came for the British Empire, but there was nobody left to speak for them...
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
-----------------------------------
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
§§§footnote
If you wish to know more about exactly how the British Empire was "being dismantled," please respond...
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Nepotism is counterproductive..."
Finally we are getting somewhere.
Direct your allegation at the Trump regime.
Their nepotism is blatant, and their next level escalation will soon follow.
I hope you like refugees, Mats, because your "friends" the Americans would like to see more of those. You see, in the grand strategy of their right-wingers, "refugees" are the tool to divide the EU, a block of peaceful nations which don't support their constant invasions, regime change games, wars, drone bombing (causing terrorism) and "divide and rule" games which they could have stopped at it end of the Cold War, but they chose not to....
They want eternal war, to guarantee their American Century....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, on the domestic politics level of things, those within such a system who intend to govern/rule always walk a delicate tightrope of how to avoid the internal revolution: the only thing those with true power/true wealth really fear. They fear the "French revolution"-style anger of the streets.
In US domestic politics: "We have to defeat this divide-and-rule strategy, which goes back thousands of years. That’s how the few CONTROL the many. Yes, there are divisions over reproductive rights and gun control, but many policies that would transform this country get combined Left-Right support." (combined left-right support = bottom-up unity)
Four time US presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, Sun Magazine interview, 2019
Within these "steered divisions", which exist naturally, all those who intend to hang onto the achieved (positions of power/wealth), and then proceed to expand the "thus achieved" to the next level of true positions of power/obscene wealth, is to "balance" the divisions. They do so by setting these up against each other with feelings ("-isms"), laws, bills, rules, or policies, on multiple tiers, both private and government, or "means" (money, limited positions of power, limited influence, etc.) so that these "natural divisions" do not unite, and in effect "exhaust themselves".
It is the rules and laws, carefully selected and implemented on tiers of power, which divide on each layer of "stones on the pyramid". These layers of privilege, then see to it that those lower down stay in check, instead of being able to focus their anger on those at the very top of the pyramid, who create the ideas which divide the "bases of the pyramid".
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA is the most warlike nation in the history of the world due to its desire to impose American values on other countries and make them the mirror image of themselves. Jimmy Carter, when he said that, obviously alluded to US strategy which they copied from the Roman Empire. On Hawaii, they took it to extremes, turning the local culture into a "Disney World"-style "cultural experience" for hambuger munching, Coke slurping overweight ignoramuses from the mainland, as entertaiment (Roman "Bread and Circusses"-strategy for the masses).
What made Europeans think their "empires" would fare any better than Native Americans, stuck into the "cabooses" of the American Century, turned into "cultural experiences" to be mass-consumed?
See the definition of a "caboose", and who said it. It wasn't me. It was the planners of the American Century, when they discussed the future of Europeans, INCL. THE BRITISH EMPIRE.
Reality? One can "conquer" a system using other means: debt, for example. John Quincy Adams said "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." Woodrow Wilson stated in 1917: "England and France have not the same views with regard to peace that we have by any means. When the war is over we can force them to our way of thinking because by that time they will, among other things, be financially in our hands ...". In a capitalist society, debt is a good way to first entrap, then liberate those who had overleveraged of their arduously assembled assets. States are amoral: they do not act out of benevolence for other systems. With World War 1 the Europe of pre-1914 had either destroyed itself or was overleveraged in debt, and that was going to be exploited in the realist world.
While London was occupied trying to play "divide and rule"-games with their continental neighbors, the USA was playing "divide and rule"-games with EUROPE. Europe of course, from THEIR perspective, incl. GB/British Empire..
§§§footnote
The US is "the most warlike nation in the history of the world (due to its desire to impose American values on other countries)" - Jimmy Carter, 2019
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside powers can "surf in and skim off the profits". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS
European peoples are to daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that that end up thinking everything they do is justified...
Has your nation, or your leader been "chosen as a favorite son"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have aside, or settle them fast, don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme, and actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU, for the gain of the outside Western Powers...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened. The word "rule" also constitutes a "trigger", or natural aversion, which would mean psychologically oposing a theory, simply based on the words used.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please, lol.
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage (see below comments thread for a few). These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favoratism.
"Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've got some bad news for all you "never gonna fight"-fanboys.
YOU. WILL. GO.
I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favourite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the leadup to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power, in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states with a GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION, and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around.
Whatever...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed.
Guess who will live longest in the "nuclear winter"-scenario? (theory)
Short answer: NOT you (personally).
Longer answer: The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand). The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
Because during the next war set up by the dividers of the world, from their assumed GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, it does not matter "who is right" and it does not even matter "who is left," loosely quoting Churchill, but rather in what state the leftovers are going to be in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like her have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yup.
Unfortunately, the people of the Levant (most of which are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries.
First it was Rome/Constantinople, then the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (ME was the "playground" during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent: classical "divide and rule". As stated, the USA would rather see the region in perpetual state of "politics by other means" (Clausewitz/On War) rather than lose the grip on it.
For that the constant violence all over the ME are very convenient in propaganda, to rile up the masses with (quote) "beheaded baby talk"...
After the watershed in history which was WW1 (end of the rule of the Ottomans), what was the status quo and who intended to change it?
The indigenous population, or the EUROPEAN "empires" and their policies and agendas?
1
-
1
-
"When two brothers are busy fighting, an evil man can easily attack and rob their poor mother. Mankind should always stay united, standing shoulder to shoulder so evil can never cheat and divide them." ― Suzy Kassem
"Divide and rule, the politician cries; Unite and lead, is watchword of the wise." ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"The rich ruling class has used tribalism, a primitive caveman instinct, to their advantage since the beginning of time. They use it to divide and conquer us. They drive wedges between us peasants and make us fight each other, so we won’t rise up against our rulers and fight them. You can observe the same old trick everywhere in America today... That doesn’t just happen all by itself. There are always voices instigating these fights." ― Oliver Markus Malloy
"Divide and rule, weaken and conquer, love and enslave, these are three tenets of politics" ― Bangambiki Habyarimana
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)." ― Mark Twain
"Any fool can know. The point is to understand." ― Albert Einstein
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
India is the West's "favorite son", just like 200 years ago during the age of colonialism...
1
-
1
-
@ThinkBRICS Historically in East Asia, India and China were the biggest losers as outsiders came with the divide-and-rule technique of power (Era of Western Imperialism).
If one understands what happened to China during their "Century of Humiliation," means that one then already has the template to understand what is happening today. One can use the historical "template" and apply it in the same manner.
What happened to China during that era, is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today. Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the little minions benefiting from the outside POWER of imperialism to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) crises into "eternal problems," sit by and do nothing as problems foment into violence, revolutions, and wars, or carry out other forms of privatized interference (corporatism) under government protection, or without. Whatever works, details really REALLY DON'T MATTER. Once "fomented troubles" rise out of hand, claim to "just want peace." Then use the little minions as favourites (favouritism = a technique within the "divide and rule" strategy of power) to destabilize an entire region, steer them against other weaker entities, and/or employ them as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regions as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc.
Whatever works for the desired region to be divided/conquered or where CONTROL and domination is required for the economic systems of gain.
There is no way that current day Chinese leaders will not have learnt their very own historical lesson, and allow their very own history to repeat/rhyme, and allow such outside meddling in the own systems to gain traction, AGAIN for a second time.
Every nation or state has its own "Never again!"
European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonial ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon. These citizens, usually around 50% of entire populations, suffer directly ("heating or eating"), or indirectly (soaring inflation), these are all "effects," not to be confused with "causes" (see concept of retro causality, one of the most easily misused ways to skew a timeline of events). Some eventually even end up in the muddy trenches.
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their (temporary) GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
With re. to how tools are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also, that a "plan" and the strategy to effect the plan, are two different things.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as the USA implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combatted by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today, and there is MORE than sufficient evidence for this. Outsiders intent on playing the game, use the revolutionary spirit, in order to hop onto useful dissent, strengthen it, and insert levers which they can pry open to gain own advantages. Beijing is certainly 100% aware of this, so everything you are witnessing today is a political EFFECT, not a political "cause" as some leaders wish to mislead us towards.
Everything you are being told about Berlin, in stages after 1894, 1904, 1907, and 1912, with gathering momentum, were EFFECTS, not CAUSES. That was, based on observation, outside powers with the intention to "divide and rule" Europe, by encroaching/encircling the major continental power, which has never changed throughout recent modern history. The ONLY factor which changed over the last few centuries, was the "major continental power" which had to be CONTROLLED by the outside power who wanted a competitive advantage. The historical parallel, is the "Chinese Century of Shame"-historicity, and is well-known at least to the 1.4 billion inhabitants of China today. Certainly, they also do not wish to become "carved up" and ruled over by outsiders again, for a second time. The template therefore predicts a similar outcome, that of the more encroachment/encirclement, the more likeliness of the "breakout attempt" in some possible future.
Obvious solution for a more stable world, stop the encroachment/encirclement.
Both historically (post-1900) as well as our recent history (post-2000) there seems little incentive for those with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to do so, but rather the repeated attempts to search for tools to do such encroachment/encirclement FOR the outside power/s intent on gain.
Empires do not become dominant because they hand out candy and bouquets of flowers, as most realists are fully aware of, therefore the wise advice to always keep a just/wise "balance of powers. If not, fail.
Power flows to where the attention goes first, in geopolitics, in the form of political policies.
These can be studied by looking at the events themselves, not what another human being tells you (incl. this essay, which doesn't tell you anything, but implores you to start focusing on the well-known events themselves, from which one can then infer the underlying hidden policies, strategies, or objectives).
If you live in East Asia, beware of the "dividers".
The hawks will come looking for "buck catchers" and the doves will disguise it as the "helping friends"-narrative = i.e. the template of modern western imperialism. Hawks and doves working in close unison, although stated as being opposite poles.
They WILL come to you, same way as they came to the Ukraine, following the 1990s.
China has "understood".
India thinks it can "play the game" like France once did in Europe (becoming a "buck catcher" for the British Empire and USA), post-1900.
Do you agree with this macro analysis?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mary Most Holy You are funny. You start "I will educate you..." and end with "....God this and God that..." :-)
So you believe in an invisible thing that made you out of mud, your wife out of a rib, then killed a bunch of people to make space for his "chosen", then got bored and left never to be seen again...
Sorry. Don't need "education" from anybody who believes in that.
I don't believe in your version of invisible friend in the sky, and don't have to in order to follow the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
You are consciously trying to erase the border between "rights" and "laws".
Rights are unalienable and always valid.
Laws change over time, to adapt to the times. A majority consensus automatically ensures that "liberty" does not slide down the slippery slope towards "depravity", if that is what you are hinting at, because the laws can simply change or be amended (state or federal level).
A legal document is a legal document.
Do you doubt the Constitution?
You don't wish to abide by the Declaration of Independence?
Therefore, all that is needed for a society to succeed is that everybody honors the unalienable right of all to "life, liberty and happiness".
Rights are rights.
If you think you can get a majority in Congress to change a law? Fine. That is your right.
The founding fathers thought hard about the weight their words carry, and they did a good job.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 200 or 300 years (in case the planet still exists) analysts will view WW1 and WW2 in a completely different light, because they will no longer be emotionally attached to the specific events, and all the minor details will fade away. That means the systemic analyses will gain traction, and in the same way we analyse the 30 Years War from 1618 to 1648 (a series of worldwide conflicts as global conflagration), the Seven Years War from 1756 to 1763 (series of conflicts as global conflagration) and the series of wars now known as the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815 (as global conflagration), because nobody looks at these events with an emotional attachment anymore. That means the systems and strategies they employed steering these events move into the foreground, where they belong. Most people have absolutely no idea of any specifics of these wars, since they simply don't care. This will happen to WW1 and WW2 over the next few dozens of years, as the specifics fade away into the background.
WW1 was a breakout attempt out of an implemented imperialist encirclement attempt after 1900. Per definition, a "preventive war." How do we as historical analysts know for a fact that it was an encirclement strategy? Because it can be plotted on a map (1891-1894, 1904, 1907), and we therefore do not need any expertise from others. Note that during the first encirclement stage (1891-1894) Berlin was being lured by the potential of an Anglo-German Alliance, with talks. Only to be told in 1895 that London wasn't interested anymore, just after the encirclement by Russia and France was finalized. Three years later (1898), the Lords were back, asking for "alliance talks" again...
Berlin: "Yeah, right...whatever. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Unlike George Bush, I think I got that right...
WW2 was a pre-pre-preventive war, in order to prevent the future encirclement of Germany, and the foreseeable and anticipated breakup of the Axis per wedge-diplomacy, whenever it suited London in some foreseeable future (standpoint of the mid-1930s).
London was dragging along a weakened France (after 1871) which was its "continental army" (quote: Wilhelm II) within the "divide and rule"-setup of Europe.
For a renewed total encirclement of Germany as happened before 1914, and all that was needed for that to proceed by London, was a German growth in economic power after the 1930s, as a repeat of history in the late-19th century.
---------------------------------------------------
For Asians, because Europeans are a lost cause:
To counter an outsider's attempts of creating division, as per "divide and rule"-strategy, it needs leaders with foresight who unite in times of peace, and do not try to impose themselves (systemically) over their neighbours.
"BALANCE OF POWER, a phrase in international law for such a “just equilibrium” between the members of the family of nations as should prevent any one of them from becoming sufficiently strong to enforce its will upon the rest. The principle involved in this, as Hume pointed out in his Essay on the Balance of Power, is as old as history, and was perfectly familiar to the ancients both as political theorists and as practical statesmen. In its essence it is no more than a precept of common-sense born of experience and the instinct of self-preservation; for, as Polybius very clearly puts it (lib. i. cap. 83): “Nor is such a principle to be despised, nor should so great a power be allowed to any one as to make it impossible for you afterwards to dispute with him on equal terms concerning your manifest rights.” (Wiki, similar Britannica, etc.)
A "balance of power"-logic, has NOTHING to do with imperialism or the creation of enemies, but to create the power to be able to guard own interest and to secure the manifest rights of the own populations against the greed of outsiders..
It is the exact opposite.
Create a just balance of all powers, if not, suffer the consequences.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All the more reasons why "generals in a Chateau miles away from the front lines, should never give orders".
A recipe for disaster.
Back in the days of sail, British Admirals had wide-ranging powers, even of a political nature for obvious reasons (communications).
It was also the most successful days of Empire.
Strange how historians would conclude that it was "generals sitting in Chateaus far away from the action" which lost many battles in WW1 and early-WW2, rather than allowing front-line commanders and officers to lead from the front, when given "objectives", rather than specific orders.
The specific orders by the Admirality, coupled with Churchill's "settle matters quickly" had 2 main effects:
1) it took the decision out of the hands of Admiral Somerville
2) put emense pressure, by dictated orders (rather than "stated objectives")
Even Churchill must have instinctively grasped that it was a mistake, and he prepared 2 speeches for Parliament.
One conciliatory, the other more defiant...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WarFace-lj4kx Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seanoneil277 PART I
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed."
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this."
US strategist in these think tanks lay out the scheme of what was going to be the new post-war reality, as a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" for the USA to control. Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under US supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.)2
SOURCE: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive Diplomático y escritor) Note, all words in quotes were actual words used IN THIS OFFICIAL US DOCUMENT, and the thesis and its quoted sources can all be downloaded for free, from the www, and using these key words provided for your search engine.
1
-
@seanoneil277 PART II
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt.
On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with.
1
-
@seanoneil277 PART III
After around 1940, ... (quote) "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident (§§§footnote) – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. *Within this framework the role of France, Germany and ENGLAND of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations..."
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world."
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.", Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
Do you spot the pattern yet?
1
-
@seanoneil277 Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even as late as 2014, about one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still some 15 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had the global influence of the Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
“Offensive realism.”
“Defensive realism.”
The Albion is on a marching route, and has its tools called "collective West" in check, via a giant cyclic dynamical system called "Globalism"...
Russia has been on the defensive since 1990. Richard Black, fmr. US Senator: "We don’t care how many Ukrainians die. How many women, children, civilians, military will die. It’s like an important football match, and we want to win."
You are the game to these people.
They don't care about you.
Whether it's the Ukraine or anywhere else on the planet.
Save yourself a discussion with the so-called "collective Western" ideologically indoctrinated, and chest-thumping dogmatists with their "paperwork". Most representatives of these types are completely resistant to arguments. It's a waste of time. That's why they immediately personally attack anyone who dares to even critically question their sacred narratives and belief systems, and call anybody who questions the millions of death on the marching routes of their man-made systems "a danger". These types thrive in large money-driven hordes called "think tanks", and these systems have 24/7 to come up with a lame excuse for every argument to deflect away from very simple logic and reason. One of the world's oldest strategies: "Do not do to others, as you do not wish to be done unto." Follow this principle, and the causal chain of effects leads back to the root cause of every human conflict.
1
-
Yup. For more than a century up to around 1900, London secured their Empire by uniquely "balancing powers" on the the continent. A geographical advantage meant they could use and abuse "temporary best friends" for their own porposes...expansion and greed, thinly veiled by random acts of kindness...
What had been built up for four-hundred years, was squandered in less than a lifetime.
With Dresden and other over the top excesses, they destroyed the balance.
Dresden is symbolic for the nail in the coffin...of the British Empire.
After the war, they would be at the mercy of two powers they had called "friends" (in a long list of previous "friends"), they had no control or influence over, and who desired Empire's valuable spheres of influence all over the world.
After the war there was nothing left to "balance out" Moscow and Washington DC.
From the complete Yes Minister:
"Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see."
How funny....
So London liked to "play games", and in the end end they "won" the proverbial "stupid prize". The eclipse of their 400-year Empire in less than a lifetime.
Down they went.
Onto the dustpile of history where they belonged...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA, dragging along its weak "collective West", practices colonialism for corporations. (aka systemic expansion, hidden behind cool sounding stories for the plebs, of "freedom" and "fighting for democracy").
The technique is age-old: divide-and-rule.
------
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
SETTLER COLONIALISM MORPHED INTO
CORPORATE COLONIALISM
The last 500 years of European/white settler colonialism as a subsection of the divide-and-rule technique. The strategy was "farms/forts" and a systemic, slow advance into the lands of ingenious peoples all over the world. Same happened in North America, Australia, New Zealand, the Levant, South America, Southern Africa, etc.
Broken promises, broken treaties, looking for excuses to make the next 'step' (ratchet principle). The only places the strategy of slow ponderous expansion failed was where the local systems were too numerous or organized (East Asia). The "template" might have various regional differences, but the end effect is always the same. Slow, step-by-step advance of the own ideology, economic systems, corporations and political power.
Simply exchange the "forts/farms" of the past 500 years, with the current "military bases/corporations" to "see" the technique.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People...
Stop complaining and getting upset...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
Feb 17, 2024 — 'If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu,' says US Secretary of State Blinken...
Remember the names of all their "lunches."
Remember all their victims.
As millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy. All around the world, millions of others like Aaron Bushell have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Eastern Europe and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elrjames7799 ...because as a British PM in those days, you had an Empire to protect.
A PM heading an Empire which refused Stalin's insidious "requests" for "an alliance", for a good reason.
Because the SU was already safe, and in no need of "an alliance." It was protected by a barrier of independent states in the west, and only had Japan to worry about. As long as Stalin did nothing, the status quo would persist...indefinitely.
Because the Limitrophe States which Stalin wanted as a precondition for such "an alliance"...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitrophe_states
....was not only a wall.
Poland was not only a barrier, but also "a gate"
Should Stalin ever try to break out of the World Island he sat on, the gate would open and Nazis would come pouring in...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
Should Stalin ever try to attack or eclipse western interests in China, or the Middle East, he'd get a suitable response.
He knew it, and it infuriated him...
The Limitrophe protected the British Empire, and Stalin wanted to erode it away with promises of "an alliance".
Promises of "an alliance" by Stalin? The original "fake news" :-)
Hitler was a lapdog, and he also knew it, and it infuriated him...
When Chamberlain came to Munich and put him in his place, Hitler had to bow down to a little man with an umbrella, which also doubled as "a big stick".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology
Because Hitler cowered at Munich and gave in, not Chamberlain and historians have it all wrong...
Here's the thing about the deceiver.
The deceiver will always tell you "what the other side is planning" (sic.), but the deceiver will never tell what he is planning himself...
Stalin.
The great deceiver...
It seems as if in 1938 the actors played their roles, and all seem to have understood exactly where they stood.
1
-
@becoming_a_historian218 Thank you.
"Where the actors" stood of course refers to the global "divide and rule"- setup of the planet, with London as supreme divider/decider (a result of a favorable geographical location).
Hitler and Stalin BOTH set out to destroy the grip London held over continental issues, using France as an extension of their power (Mearsheimer's "buck passers/buck catchers/bloodletting war").
Exemplary of a divide and rule/conquer strategy:
Entire regions of human beings are used or set up as proxies, as "walls" or "Limitrophe States", or "barriers", to seperate potential areas which might unite.
Wiki: "In modern history, it was used to refer to provinces that seceded from the Russian Empire at the end of World War I, during the Russian Civil War (1917–1922), thus forming a kind of belt or cordon sanitaire separating Soviet Russia from the rest of Europe during the interwar period.[4]... The nations were then "the cards to change hands in big political games" and included the Baltic peoples, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians."
These nations were, and still are today, simply "tools" for the empires who hold the geographical advantage of power.
When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think (§§footnote) today.
Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer of and over continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers.
These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology).
Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.
Has it ever occured to a viewer that if a policy or strategy "divided Europeans" with a "ruling" (Versailles Treaty), that it actually fits the definition of the the "divide and rule" technique?
The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group.
After WW2 the "Versailles attitude" of "dividing Europeans with "rulings" continued, with the Truman Doctrine.
Churchill of course, not in power anymore, announced the divide and rule strategy with his "Iron Curtain speach" a year before.
The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely.
§§ Think = As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the systems/strategies tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What connects the topic of this video, as "compartmentalized history" and 99% ancillary details, with the bigger overall European "picture"?
It is "divide and rule" as THE "systems/strategies" tier of things, as the 1% of history that counts...
Exemplary of a divide and rule/conquer strategy:
Entire regions of human beings are used or set up as proxies, as "walls" or "Limitrophe States", or "barriers", to seperate potential areas which might unite.
Wiki: "In modern history, it was used to refer to provinces that seceded from the Russian Empire at the end of World War I, during the Russian Civil War (1917–1922), thus forming a kind of belt or cordon sanitaire separating Soviet Russia from the rest of Europe during the interwar period.[4]... The nations were then "the cards to change hands in big political games" and included the Baltic peoples, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians."
These nations were, and still are today, simply "tools" for the empires who hold the geographical advantage of power.
When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think (§§footnote) today.
Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer of and over continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers.
These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology).
Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.
Has it ever occured to a viewer that if a policy or strategy "divided Europeans" with a "ruling" (Versailles Treaty), that it actually fits the definition of the the "divide and rule" technique?
The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group.
After WW2 the "Versailles attitude" of "dividing Europeans with "rulings" continued, with the Truman Doctrine.
Churchill of course, not in power anymore, announced the divide and rule strategy with his "Iron Curtain speach" a year before.
The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely.
§§ Think = As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the systems/strategies tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 This thread is devoted to the a-holes, (<20%) pscychos, and other imperialists in London and Washington DC, who had their own imperialist policies and priorities, which were independent of anything Berlin did, because these own long-term goals came first.
If you wish to voice any criticism at the a-holes, (<20%) pscychos, and other imperialists in Berlin, write your own OP.
Here, just address the points raised in the OP, and if not, don't expect an answer if you can't stay on topic.
1
-
1
-
How our leaders avoid "avoiding war", and then make a racket...in three easy steps.
Step 1:
Ignore the warnings.
”I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.” George Kennan, re. NATO expansion, New York Times interview in 1998
Step 2:
Watch on as the situation deteriorates.
As "crisis" turns to "gloom", do little.
Step 3:
From wiki: "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
Butler confesses that during his decades of service in the United States Marine Corps: I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested." Smedley-Butler
Every generation is "same procedure as last time".
Today a new generation of racketeers are "standing down/standing by".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
1
-
1
-
@62ndAlpha
And two months later, Ben-Gurion speaking to the Zionist Actions Committee on 6 April, Ben-Gurion declared: “We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area…. I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of the Arab population.”
[Ben-Gurion, Behilahem Yisrael, Tel Aviv, Mapai Press, 1952, pp. 86-87]
If you read carefully, you'll notice the sources in the comments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dean Keepers Reap as you sow counts for all.
The price for a "flattened Germany" would be paid after WW2.
Of course, Germany as a "power", benefited the British Empire.
With this "power" wiped out, Empire became indefensible.
Empire's "fwiends"?
Of course, they had their own agendas.
Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
[Google: The American_Century]
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
[britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
[Google: Operation_Unthinkable 1944]
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
Stalin quickly and instinctively figured out that Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
[Google: Percentages_agreement Churchill and Stalin]
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. Here's Greece. I'll take the rest, including your friends Poland 100%. What are you going to do about it?"
Sow "more than the measure", then "reap" the demise of influence, and your "empire"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Wrong again.
By mid/late-1944 the massive fleets of heavy bombers, coupled with an almost complete lack of properly co-ordinated defense, made it feasable to burn down entire cities.
However, if you lived in GB (not the USA), you were "protected" indirectly, on the continent.
Destroying any continental country completely, would therefore lead to an inbalance of power, which can then be exploited by "the last man standing".
Who was the "last man standing"? Was his ideology "friendly" towards "empires" and the western way of life? (freedom, liberty, self-determination, capitalism, etc.)
London: oH dEar, wE diDn'T thiNk thAt fAr
No "balanced" continent = no political leverage = no Empire
Too bad
So sad.
Down they went.
Others would benefit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: WRONG.
It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid ze divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
The Big Lie is the power of the divide and rule/conquer technique, and even the Nazis hid their "Big Lie"-conspiracy theory, behind an even bigger lie: how they intended to play this game until they got into power after their failed coup d'etat.
The "Big Lie" is not a myth but a misrepresentation of the truth.
It is the power of "divide and rule/conquer" which lurks behind every strategy they follow, in order to gain.
No human being has ever come up with a means to overcome this age-old technique of ruling over billions of people, because it is predicated on human nature itself, which is enduring.
No power player wants to become associated with authoritarian, or "colonial" tactics and strategies, or Nazis, so they cannot use it as a political means to attack rivals: it will immediately result in blowback.
The "Big Lie" conspiracy masked the divide and rule technique.
No power player can ever accuse any other power player of using it, since it will immediately backfire: the accusation of using the technique themselves, which in most cases of intent of gain will even apply***. The disguise usually comes in the form of scapegoating or another form of appeal to the emotion of listeners, or addressing and fortifying their already existing biases.
"Scapegoating" = an appeal to lower emotions of potential supporters.
In our divided societies, appealing to these biases might always be that tiny little "weight" that tilts the scale in very tightly run political elections.
Most power players read books on strategy, with the intention of using these strategies for personal gain, not because they wish to benefit you (the individual).
There is always the urge to defend own favored systems, when one reads perceived "attacks" on these favored systems or own heroes, and the beloved own "-isms", which also reveal standard procedures, meaning the "attacker" soon falls into predetermined pathways to deflect and obfuscate from the core theory...
Footnotes:
**only applies in competitive "intent of gain" systems, *not benevolent forms of reciprocal human interaction which are 100% fair...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Only a fool would indiscriminately kill potential allies (Christians trapped in a dictatorial state), in order to save people who would stick a knife in their back as a matter of ideology the minute they got the chance to do so (Communists).
Sun Tzu said: "In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to capture an entire army, a regiment or company rather than to destroy it."
The Western Allies "sowed" death and "reaped" 50 years of Cold War, which (as we know today) almost lead to the end of mankind on half a dozen occasions (MAD). Of course, if it hadn't been for the divide and rule policies of the previous alpha in the world (London), there need never have been "Nazis" and "commies" to fight in the first place...
In 1941, a smart leadership would have let the nazis and commies "slug it out" to mutual destruction, seeing how they were sworn enemies.
Recipe for success?
Only support the losing side as much so they don't collapse, but not enough to win outright.
Do you know who enebled WW2, because he wanted your parents to die?
Stalin.
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
Roosevelt and Stalin: leTs saVe thE cOmmieS so wE caN fIght tHem in 5 yEars...
1
-
1
-
The REAL aim is still China.
Spot their "frontlines" (in times of peace) as potential "unsinkable aircraft carriers."
Russia, desired as territory as eventually "carved up" into smaller pieces and turned into future minions, is simply the means to an end.
Korea, Vietnam, Ukraine...
Will the little minions ("buck catchers" in strategy) ever learn?
Those who eagerly "carve up" others, even along arbitrary human-made boundaries on a map, dividing individuals, organisations, families, and businesses, are unlikely to agree with being "carved up" by someone else.
Korea was divided by imperialists during World War II (with the cooperation of the imperialist Allied camp) without consulting the local population about their priorities.
A few years later, they attempted the same in Vietnam, using the ongoing war of independence as a pretext (marketed as "the USA saving the world from communism"). This time the imperialist "winners" of WW2 were on opposing sides. The effort was unsuccessful.
The true objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China
According to Wikipedia: "Main article: China containment policy. As articulated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-term strategic initiative to encircle Beijing with the USSR and its satellite states, as well as: The Japan–Korea front, The India–Pakistan front, and The Southeast Asia front. Although President Johnson claimed that the goal of the Vietnam War was to ensure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a memorandum from January 1965 by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton indicated that an underlying justification was "not to assist a friend, but to contain China". On November 3, 1965, Secretary of Defense McNamara sent a memorandum to Johnson, outlining "major policy decisions regarding our course of action in Vietnam". The memorandum begins by revealing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965: 'The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they support a long-term United States policy to contain China. McNamara accused China of having imperial ambitions similar to those of the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States: 'China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30s, and like the USSR in 1947—emerges as a significant power threatening to undermine our importance and effectiveness globally and, more distantly but more ominously, to unite all of Asia against us.'
Note that this is a common tactic in international relations: accuse the "other side" of actions that one is undertaking oneself. The strategy of divide-and-rule is kept hidden, while the opposing side is accused of having malicious intentions, without providing any actual evidence (the concept of "accusation without proof"). To encircle China, the United States aimed to establish "three fronts" as part of a "long-term effort to contain China": 'There are three fronts to a long-term effort to contain China (recognising that the USSR "contains" China to the north and northwest): (a) the Japan–Korea front; (b) the India–Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.'
Later, McNamara acknowledged that containing China would ultimately cost America a considerable amount of time, money, and lives. As is often the case, "extending" a rising rival power incurs "expenses", including lives, which is why the intention is to create proxies in artificial entities like "South Vietnam" to carry out such containment for the dominant power.
This is divide-and-rule.
Favouritism, or the "paid/supported proxy", can be employed during peacetime to undermine rivals or wage subversive warfare, or during wartime to reduce costs and losses while gaining systemic advantages after a "victory". When a proxy fails to achieve this "extension of the rival", it is quickly abandoned or discarded to cut the "investment", and a new proxy is sought. This pattern was evident in the 1930s: in 1939, the "first proxy" identified was Poland, and when Poland failed to "extend Germany" for a prolonged period, it was decided to provoke either Germany or the USSR to invade Scandinavia (Plan R4). Ideally, both Germany and the SU would invade Scandinavia, leading to a potential clash there, distracting attacks away from the heartlands. While Great Britain and France still cooperated, this was straightforward: both would benefit if the war "pivoted away" from Western Europe/British Isles into Scandinavia. If the attention could be focused somewhere else on the map, a Battle of Britain and a Battle of France could potentially be avoided, if the Germans became bogged down in Scandinavia for example...
That did not occur.
However.
Align with such individuals at your own risk.
They do not adhere to the Christian values they consistently boast as being "oh-so-superior" and worthy of admiration...
North Korea/South Korea (implemented "unsinkable aircraft carrier").
North Vietnam/South Vietnam (intention/failure).
East Ukraine/West Ukraine (in progress).
Always the same playbook.
The modus operandi has been consistent since 1776: advancing onto another power's borders (systematically), also through proxies, then blaming those who are encroached upon/encircled if they react, or blaming the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War advance began in the 1990s, so even if the Trump administration did not initiate the "marching order", it is a fact that he did not halt it either when he had the chance during his first term (2017-2021). This can be examined as empirical evidence (observation/map) which clarifies who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should avoid engaging with debaters who base their theories on ideology or emotions, especially not if the advocate reveals themselves as dogmatic, prone to logical fallacies or cognitive biases. Such individuals are not interested in outcomes but wish to make "debates" go in circles indefinitely, obfuscating, side-lining, and finger-pointing to evade the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current trajectory of the empire, which began when the USSR faced economic decline in the late 1980s, with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the advance)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the advance)
Continuously advance, trampling over one red line after another, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). If anything negative occurs, and lives are lost, always blame someone else. This type of imperialist behaviour, as demonstrated by Washington DC and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not begin solely after World War II. This marching order has been in place since 1776, with the first victims being neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territories were coveted. That was followed by Spain in the 1890s (put into action in 1898) whose desirable territories would create a link between the USA and East Asia.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries so that any economic surplus generated by that country is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US government, and especially to US bondholders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It remains the same today as it has since 1776.
The reality is that neither Trump nor any previous administration has halted this (systemic) "slow march" of systemic expansion, whilst getting the "buck catcher" to pick up the tab if things don't turn out as strategized.
Be cautious of the ideologically indoctrinated: Like a child, they confidently repeat things they do not know to be true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"), and all his US/collective Western "best friends" would happily let them fight "to the last Ukrainian/last bullet."
For the "divider," dividing a region of the globe, sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. The USA could afford to wait. Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
The "biggest loser" of the systemic conflagrations that were "WW1" and "WW2" was the great divider/grand encircler London/British Empire. Around the year 1900 its lords set out to encircle (by proxy) its biggest contester.
HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books.
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source)
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies.
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
EPISODE I:
"... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies (ALL MORE THAN ADEQUATELY ELABORATED in the below comments section) called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
EPISODES II thru IV:
Lotsa other stuff happening.
EPISODE V:
If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003
Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice.
Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power.
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it.
1
-
1
-
@Zenapprentice The problem is that the policies he's implementing will only kick in years later.
For example, the housing policies and deregulation implemented by Clinton, and vastly expanded by Bush, only kicked in in 2007...
Same with his constant strutting around like a warmonger, which will at some point incite a 2nd or 3rd tier government official to launch a false flag, or entice a war monger in Saudi Arabia to carry out a false flag, and then start a war in the ME, with thousands of US body bags and more trillions wasted.
Is that what you want?
The Bible says "reap what you sow", and you'll reap the effect of Trump's actions. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next year, but you will reap....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal.
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the beginning, one nation's leaders made another nation's people "the default rival in peace/default enemy in war" as a matter of policy.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany, available for download as PDF file]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war.
And so the policy makers set off to encroach upon and surround their own chosen "default rival" with a ring of "temporary best friends"...
And so the biblical "seeds" were sown, which Europe had to "reap" later.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Name the three main contributing factors re. "who rules the world", and you'll understand what I mean.
Who "ruled the world" in 1900?
Who "ruled the world" in 1945?
The "issue" is far bigger than this video suggests.
Up until WW2, Europeans ruled the world, foremost the British Empire, and with war they had sacrificed their position as rulers of the world, and others would take over...
Because, the type of rule or economy plays little role in the outcome of whether one "rules the world" or not.
Geography plays a far bigger role.
So at the turn of century London "ruled the world" because geography isolated them from the continent and their island status gave them the upper hand at a time when war was still the common way to determine "top dog" or not....
When development of technology produced ever further reaching weapons of war, GB's island status did not offer the same measure of protection anymore...so they went down.
The weapons of 1900 couldn't harm the British Empire, but the weapons of 1945 could....
In that era around WW2, it was the USA which was (as the sole power) isolated from this "great game", and benefited as the result of its geographical isolation, and because there was that "one ring which ruled them all"...lol, but in a good way of course.
And it wasn't only the forces of evil who wanted to "rule the world", but also people who thought they had a God-given right to do so...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
...and who thought they were better than everybody else...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
1
-
Live life, according to own convictions.
Just like the founding fathers wanted it to be.
Not to impose own convictions onto others...
You should have a chat with Chan.
She didn't just simply abstain from voting.
Doing so, was within her rights and nobody objected to it.
She didn't just merely choose not to vote (perfectly ok), but linked a political decision she took, to her own personal convictions.
That should be frowned upon, because the USA is based on the separation of church and state. That means, as a leader, you're not supposed to value personal convictions higher than the law or founding documents of the USA, like the Constitution, or The Declaration of Independence. Note here, that it guarantees every American (not only Christians) the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness".
We should be constantly reminded not to stand in others way (within the laws of the land) who pursue happiness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
FAUX liberals reveal their own true nature.
To gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
1
-
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life on all tiers, often by force, coercian, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world).
That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power).
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the foot of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers.
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace, in times of crises on all tiers of power, and in times of war.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same butt...
Create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection.
Then point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."
Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST.
And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power.
In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS.
In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS.
Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relations" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket for the modus operandi.
Divide and Rule.
The LINK of the WORLD.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
---------------------------------------
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script for the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
Apparently the London lords weren't smart enough to follow a policy they themselves had devised and imposed on Europe, to protect their "Empire".
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In February 1942, the decision was taken to make the German people (not the Nazi Government or military) "the enemy".
By destoying Central Europe, they destroyed their own "scale" which they intended to "hop onto" in either war or peace, this side now, the other side another time...
After the war there was nothing left to play "balancing games" with anymore.
They had destroyed "the scale" which protected their own Empire.
After the war, this weakness was then soon exploited by their "WW2 best fwiends", who would armwrestle the British Empire into the ground with a series of well-aimed but devestating own political/economic policies.
The British Empire reminds me of that cartoon of the dumb lumberjack sawing off the branch he is sitting on.
And today?
Still the kids are shouting: Here, a bigger saw..."
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."[end of]
America's allies and foes in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
Set up European and Eurasian nations against each other.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 In view of more than 3 million Germans, yes, the British contribution after Dunkirk was "token".
Furthermore, after Dunkirk, these token forces overwhelmingly "hugged" the coasts, where they could quickly hop on a boat and evacuate when the heat turned up.
The own air defenses were already held back by Dowding, so the combined effort suffered from a lack of air cover.
I've given the overall grand strategy overview at the top, under the video.
In view of the fact that in mid-June 1940 France was basically alone, Brits more inclined to view defending the continent a "lost cause", so France surrendered rather than needlessly sacrificing more French soldiers, civilians, and property destruction.
1
-
1
-
Belgium was a pretext.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB.
In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
The British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war".
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". Correct?
Germany therefore approached British leaders, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
1
-
@axel usul Let's take one misconception at a time.
Firstly, history is causal.
Things seldom happen without a cause.
It is easy to confuse "cause" and "effect", or even "cause" with "correlation". Wars are a prime example.
The often stated "naval arms race" being a cause for WW1 is a myth.
Historians pin their flag on the date "1906", saying that here is where that "history" started.
Actually, the naval arms race started in 1871, with an attempted blockade of northern German ports by the French navy.
The "cause" was therefore the intention of German leaders to protect German citizens from the threat of blockade.
It "started" with a German-French naval arms race, and expanded to a German - French/Russian arms race after France and Russia formed an alliance (Entente Cordial).
When GB joined the Tripple Entente, this "naval arms race" was already in full swing. Obviously, German leaders then had to protect German ports from a potential blockade of 3 navies . British, Russian, and French.
In other words, the German naval re-armament was an "effect" of previous actions. Not a cause but an effect of previous events. The Germans reacted to a potential threat.
A confusion of "cause and effect", by simply pinning a "starting date" randomly on a timeline.
"History" is being "sold" to us the wrong way, and it is easy to confuse people.
German leaders responded to a threat.
Are you saying that nations are not allowed to respond to threats made against them?
Then, study the design of the German ships.
They were close range, coast defence vessels.
Now, look at worldwide naval bases. There were none.
The threat to the RN and the British Empire is the typical fear- and hate mongering by arms manufacturers, vying for funds for their particular industry.
1
-
1
-
Those opposing the motion lean heavily on the emotional argument that WW1 was fought "because of Belgium".
No, not "because of Belgium", but because of a policy the lords in London had decided upon loooong before the Kaiser was "building ships", and "wanted colonies".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
A policy called Balance of Power, which practically dictated that GB would always join the weaker side, irrelevant of "right or wrong", and the only way GB could have realistically stayed out of the continental war about to unfold, was to abstain from the selfappointed role of "balancer" for the continent.
It was British leaders, deciding in London, and this free choice had nothing to do with anything any continental leaders did, or didn't do.
Why did GB join WW1?
As simple as asking "Would GB have stayed out, under any circumstance?" To which the answer is no.
The choice of making an entire people an enemy by default, long before they had even done anything to deserve the status of "enemy", had far reaching effects...
1
-
1
-
1
-
7:10
These "pariah states" (Black Legends) were not the only examples of "avoiding another great power ruling."
If anybody wishes to know what is in store for the EU and other American "best fwiends" after 2025, look back in history to what the USA did to the British Empire after WW2, when it was bankrupt and weak. The first victim of the American Century was not as proclaimed and the generally accepted narrative of history, that "it was the USSR" (sic./Truman Doctrine, "Iron Curtain"-narrative), but the British Empire, which was cut down to size turning London from "British lion" to "poodle" in around 25 years, using economic warfare.
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500. My shoutout to the original author whose site is since removed.]
This is divide-and-rule.
A blueprint for how one Albion deceived the other, to become the "next Albion".
The transfer of power from one control freak system to the next.
Pure unfettered opportunism, via steered and implemented division of others for own gain..
After 1945 the USA used its own might as hammer and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). By 1945, Stalin (Moscow), smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and witnessing the collapse of virtually every other European power, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2. It was overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has self-centred imperialist aims and goals , one eventually destroys all alternatives, and when you try to defend everything, you'll eventually "defend nothing" (Friedrich the Great, re. a false allocation of clout and resources, in grand strategy and geopolitics).
That was preceded in geopolitics by a Washington DC shift away from a global non-interventionalist stand on international relations, towards a more active engagement in world affairs and global expansion which incl. European affairs (the study of "Offensive Realism") which started around the year 1900, symbolized by the Spanish-American War (1898). Something London lords happily signed up for with the "Great Rapprochement" (aligned and associated "friends only, no obligations", in the "interests"-reality of imperialism). London must have thought the good times were coming, alongside their "new friends" and making the rules for everybody else. Two Albions getting happily engaged...
What could possibly go wrong putting your trust in Washington DC?
AROUND THE YEAR 2000
In reality, your "friends" in capitalism over the Atlantic can't wait for history to repeat, to wait until Europe is weak again, exhausted from war, down in power, ready for the carving knives of OUTSIDE imperialism, all by the "friends" who are standing by and standing down to enter and benefit from the division and destruction they themselves greatly contributed to after the 1990s.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You can do your part.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
WW1 was the biggest US "regime change operation" in history.
Though not necessarily started with the intent of "regime change" as done with smaller less powerful states, the situation as it unfolded (1914-18) was exploited in order to impose "regime change".
"If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler."
Winston Churchill, 26th April 1946
That short statement practically has "regime change" written all over it.
That short statement also makes it clear what happens if one removes the gatekeepers (monarchy) of a political system from power, which then opens the door for all kinds of ideologues.
They thought they could throw out the monarchs, and morph Germany into becoming "more like us" (old Roman technique of power), and there would be no consequences.
Whatever they thought, one thing is clear: US think tanks who wrote the 14 Points Speech KNEW they were far enough away from Europe not to have to face any consequences should their own suggestions combined with the invariably following top-down implementations result in blowback (causality).
So what had led Churchill to make such a statement? As part of the 14-Point Plan, Wilson demanded that Germany de-throne Wilhelm II, before any peace talks could begin. The Allies also refused a German delegation as part of the peace talks in 1919. WW1 was the USA's hitherto biggest "regime change operation" (Germany). Because here is what they tell you is history in thousands and thousands of books and docs: the "German people" or "German leaders" were the ones who "forced Wilhelm II into exile, or " forced the autocrats to abdicate because they were angry" or variations of that. Here is what they (usually) don't say (lie by omission): That it was the own side which had previously coerced other German leaders like Max von Baden into forcing the German government out of office, because that was a condition for armistice negotiations to take place.
Here is the timeline of events:
1) Coerce German leaders to topple the current Berlin government.
2) German leaders realizing there was no alternative to stop the war, topple the current Berlin government.
3) Omit step 1) for the "narrative of WW1", or pretend it never happened, and then "write history" that pleases the own feelings by simply pinning the flag on the timeline, saying that the history of that event started on the day chosen by the writers of history. In order to find out what really happened, an interested history fan would have to delve into very specific books that cover the entire series of events, to find out the details. But, who does that?
From the primary source:
"The President would deem himself lacking in candor did he not point out in the frankest possible terms the reason why extraordinary safeguards must be demanded. Significant and important as the constitutional changes seem to be which are spoken of by the German Foreign Secretary in his note of the 20th of October, it does not appear that the principle of a government responsible to the German people has yet been fully worked out or that any guarantees either exist or are in contemplation that the alterations of principle and of practice now partially agreed upon will be permanent. Moreover, it does not appear that the heart of the present difficulty has been reached. It may be that future wars have been brought under the control of the German people, but the present war has not been; and it is with the present war that we are dealing. It is evident that the German people have no means of commanding the acquiescence of the military authorities of the empire in the popular will; that the power of the King of Prussia to control the policy of the empire is unimpaired; that the determining initiative still remains with those who have hitherto been the masters of Germany. Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action, the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the world do not and cannot trust the word of those who have hitherto been the masters of German policy, and to point out once more that in concluding peace and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany."
Source: International Notes: Diplomatic Notes, Prepared By Allan Westcott, Ph. D., Instructor, U. S. Naval Academy, November 1918 Proceedings Vol. 44/11/189
Washington DC power mongers employ old Roman techniques of power, including the "morphing" of systems which favor the own ideological expansionist goals, and one of these old Roman techniques is divide-and-rule. In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Not only Germany was divided, but also Europe was divided with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in popular narratives composed mostly of "being friends" even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, so by 1945 the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@henryford2950 You are not "free".
You are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Crises and wars is what one gets if one wants to rip/deceive a "sphere of influence" out of the hands of a rival.
WW1 came about because Imperialist Russia wanted to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence out of the hands of" Austria-Hungary.
It "started" with a slug-out between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, and "ended" in WW1.
WW2 came about because of Hitler/Nazi Germany and Stalin/the SU wanting to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence out of the hands of" the West/empires (GB/France)".
It "started" with a slug-out between Germany and Poland, and "ended" in WW2.
The War in the Ukraine came about because the USA/West/NATO wanted to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence" out of the hands of Russia.
It "started" with a slug-out between the Ukraine and pro-Russian seperatists proxies (fueled by the USA/West/NATO), and will end in a "2nd Cold War" (hopefully "only" a "cold war").
An eternal game...
Friends one day, enemies the next, friends one day, enemies the next, friends one day, enemies the next...
Why bother trying to read "25,000 books" (Christopher Clark) only about a specific topic, say WW1?
Why philosophize endlessly about whether it is "one left arm" or "only one ball" which "starts wars", if one can simply point at "greed" or the desire to "rule" over others?
Irrelevant of the context and time (truisms). Leaders "defending the indefensible" will always be around.
"Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible – there will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain." - 06/09/2022 Rep. Elizabeth Cheney (R) Wyoming
They were there 100 years ago, and they were there 20 years ago when war could have been avoided by simply being honorable and stopping the ongoing process of "sphere of influence" stealing, using every trick in the book to disguise their actions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
May all those future prospective "best little fwiends of America" take a very long, and very good, and very deep look.
This could be YOU in a few years time, if you don't deliver upon the prospect of "extending Russia" (US strategy paper talk about using millions of human lived as tools for their own expansive aims) or "extending China" for American interests.
Millions dead, but Washington DC is salivating about your resources, and what's "in it for me."
Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Armenia, Georgia, Baltic States...and, and, and....
Take a good long hard look at "poor little Ukraine".
1
-
1
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Fact is that Trump, or any other previous admin, did not stop this "(systemic) slow march".
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemon.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quiet or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
Just claim hero status for the self, and blame everybody else for everything which goes wrong.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else? Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
1
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
1
-
Notice how Rabin never used the term "full sovereign state" when he referred to this "Palestine", but the term "less than a state." Did you spot the use of [Israel's] "natural growth"? Critical question... Where to? Where would Israelis/Zionists "naturally grow" to, if there were equal neighbors, as a balanced power, which could actually stop any such Zionist settler "growth".
It is fairly clear what they wanted, and there are historical examples for this: the "pool of cheap labor" within the own borders, given a little bit of "independence" to manage own affairs, but de facto/de jure powerless to stop the CONTROLLING power, intended to be Jerusalem, as Jewish capital city.
It is literally what RSA did with their "Bantustans". Back then the people could not be fooled. They saw through the deceit, and rightfully called it out for what it was: just another Apartheid ploy to avoid the rise of equals.
Sad reality? Today masses of fools are being mislead into praising Israel's attempted implementation of Apartheid, while at the same time denouncing a similar scheme actually implemented by the RSA, as being bigotted/rascist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@indy_go_blue6048 GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs.
Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent.
Of course, London already knew this.
That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem:
Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900).
And so "poor little Belgium" was born.
Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"...
France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war.
The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about-turn Jedi mind-control trick on weak minds :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first.
Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals.
It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up.
Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights".
It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
1
-
1
-
While the peace movements tries its best to attain peace for the Ukraine, the warmongers are setting up the "next Ukraine"...
Georgia/Divide and Rule
Here is what they tell you these days: Something along the lines of "Georgian leaders are all Moscow puppets," and the oppression of the poor people via a "foreign influence law," and how it is all about current leaders being Moscow stooges....
Here is what they won't tell you: That the foreign state/empire (Washington DC) which pays these protesters or their handlers, via such agencies as the CIA affiliated NED (of ex-Maidan fame) already have their own act to avoid foreign meddling in the USA.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act
What they won't tell is that the foreign meddling in Georgia came first, and that the act by a sovereign state attempting to regulate this foreign meddling, came after that on the timeline.
A typical act of imperialist hypocrisy and deception, as per strategy of divide and rule. The sole intention is to avoid continental European/Eurasian unity, and is implemented by Washington DC, as it has been for the past 200 years, using various deceptive divide and rule techniques. First by London, which was indirectly very convenient for Washington DC. Then after 1945, after the British Empire was driven into the ground using economic warfare means as explained by Michael Hudson (Super Imperialism/1972), the role of divider was directly taken over by Washington DC.
The only attribute which decides whether one is the sole divider, or slips into the role of the divided, is POWER.
GRAND STRATEGY/GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Georgia, and millions of Georgians, are simply being set up as the "next Ukraine." Such a setting up of neighbors against neighbors has a long history and it is considered the absolute "acme of professionalism" by Washington DC to set up others to fight and die, so that US leaders in faraway Washington DC can haggle around in political games, arguing about how much the lives of these locals are worth, and all in efforts to score brownie points amongst their adoring fans. To "invest" in such death is considered the Washington DC norm, as has been openly admitted countless times, by countless Washington DC warmongers...
The scale of such setups is not important, nor how it is justified: It is divide and rule.
Such selective FAVORATISM is indicative of a divide and rule strategy, by an outside power.
Whether it is currently Tiflis, or historically London which was being FAVORED by the power with the geographical advantage which was Washington DC, it remains a divide and rule strategy.
It does not matter if anybody informs the people that it is a divide and rule strategy, or not, because the strategy is given away by the EVENTS.
As one of the FAVORED locals might chest-thump around about how powerful ones friends are, but there will always be a price tag (game theory).
See Ukraine today, the "past FAVORITE."
See Super Imperialism to discover the price London paid for becoming a Washington DC favorite.
The price tag for Britons was the British Empire, which was "dismantled" (Washington DC strategy paper talk) after 1945, and US access to previously protected markets enforced.
Are you from Georgia?
It does not matter if some or other commenter writes that actions were voluntary, it remains divide and rule.
Just remember that the friends on the ground from the West you might interact with, are powerless. What they think is therefore unimportant.
Their superiors overwhelmingly don't care, and will dump you (the favorite) the minute you are not useful anymore.
This is regardless of how many "friends" you've made: your country/organization WILL be dumped, the minute your usefulness is no longer deemed valuable for these Washington DC overlords.
It does not matter what ANY commenter writes or says, because the strategy of DIVIDE AND RULE is revealed by the actions of the actors.
The only way to disprove the strategy of divide and rule, is if one can state that the events which point at an active divide and rule strategy, did not take place.
1
-
The big picture...and how the little piece of the puzzle called "Mers el Kebir" fit into it.
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying a continental power or dissing it, was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings.
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...game over...
1
-
1
-
It goes far deeper than that.
It was fundamentally wrong, and because it was fundamentally wrong, there was a price to pay for "the winners" too.
British leaders bombed the British Empire into financial ruin.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
So Brits woke up one morning, only to discover that their ...ahem... "SPECIAL relationship fwiends" had stolen all their pre-war markets, and were not going to give them back.
Arthur "God said thou shallt not kill - I laughed - He sent the bill" Harris
Washington DC: "It's a special relationship...you bend over..."
Me: ROTFLMFAO
London ended up "third fiddle" after the war, and Stalin smelled this weakness like a hound to the kill, tore up the Percentages Agreement which London would need as markets in Central Europe and the Balkans to rebuild their precarious finances, and said: "Wadda ya gonna do about it? GOT NUKES? Why don't you send a few brrrrrr-Lancasters and "4,000 thousand pounders? ROTFLMFAO..."
All of that, cost the Brits their Empire...
Arthur "I set Dresden on fire and reaped Empire expire" Harris
Arthur "I have a gweat idea: factories making tanks are panacea" Harris
Arthur "Nazi kids are my enemy, nooooooooooo...does BROKE have a remedy?" Harris
Arthur "Lancs are active tonight, setting more & more Pounds alight" Harris
Arthur "I made a commie my friend, and they screwed me in the end" Harris
Super cringe
1
-
@tareqxodia4597 Cut out all the hubris and jingoism, and it's all about the systems of powrr, and which strategies they use. It is the chief reason why the ME is so divided.
This division was always easily politically exploited.
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interverence at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
§§§footnote
The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
1
-
@grisflyt Yes. 100% agreed.
Your personal standpoint is the first step to be able to stand up to the ruling elites' top-down "divide and rule"-strategy of power, if human beings at the base stand united, regardless of religion, ethnicity, race, creed, or anything else which the elites use to porposefully divide us.
It's the lines "divide and rule" once drew on maps, which linger on long after the empires have left.
These "lines" are not only on the maps, but they also persist in the heads of following generations.
You can see these effects of imperialism having long-term effects in Europe, the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, or on the Indian subcontinent. Everywhere.
The "divide" between Hindus and Muslims in India today, was once fostered and deeped by the British Empire, as a "divide and rule"-strategy of top-down power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I read your comments.
All of them.
You propagate "attacking now" (your words from the OP).
You advocate a "first strike scenario" while "they are weak.
Correct?
That is pathetically wrong, because YOU think YOU know how THEY are going to react.
Correct?
Answer?
No, you don't.
In fact, the MOST likely scenario in case the US strikes first, will be a similar scenario which ACTUALLY unfolded during the Iraq war. Because Saddam KNEW he didn't stand a chance, he tried to expand the war, and cause a process of escalation by launching Scuds at Israel, HOPING that would draw an answer from Israel, HOPING that would draw an answer from other Gulf countries, eventually ending in a massive fuck up and a major war.
It didn't happen, because Israel didn't react. Remember?
In order for your "first strike" scenario to work, you HAVE to fabricate a reason...like we haven't seen that before...
Therefore, your "deep research" (whatever that means) aside.
Your scenario of the "tactical use" of nukes will NOT unfold.
In case of a US "first strike", the NK leadership's ONLY chance is to expand the war, by sending their nukes to countries like Japan, or South Korea, hoping that THAT will escalate the war, draw in China, Russia, etc....
See?
See how easy it is if one actually uses VALID historical parallels?
1
-
Dauntless Assassin Now I'm truly confused.
In your OP you advocate a "first strike" against the North, by (presumably) the USA (you wrote "we").
Now you are writing that the North's best chance of success would be to declare war on "only the US", in other words... they make the first move.
Huh?
There is no logic in that.
It is entirely irrelevant who strikes first. The North WILL loose, unless (like during the Gulf War), they can expand the war.
THEIR best option is to do nothing.
Their empty threats, bluffs, the entire nuclear program, missile launches, and other actions are a response the US presence in the South.
In reality, propaganda aside, is that they have looong given up hope to EVER conquer the South, and unite Korea. The simple reason is that ever since the fall of communism (say, early 1990s) they don't have the allies who would risk a full out nuclear war in order to achieve that.
China is perfectly happy with having the North as a little lap dog, to snarl and growl every once in a while to keep her competition on the edge.
Russia has strategic interests in the region (Vladivostok only a few miles away).
These 2 will NOT tolerate western meddling in the North, and also NOT back any attempt by the North to start any war.
Your scenarios are unlikely and extremely speculative, completely ignoring the realities of the political rivalries.
You think China and Russia will stay out if Japan gets involved in a potential conflict in Korea? Dude, read some history. China and Japan go waaay back, the the wounds of WW2 have not healed. A spark, and all that will rise to the surface again.
A spark, and you'll see the hordes in Beijing and Tokio screaming for "revenge", and mechanisms of the same old domino effects that has caused EVERY major conflict in history will unfold again.
So, again.
The North will NOT do anything, or "start" anything, unless there is some kind of US false flag, like the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
A lie, which led to the escalation, domino effects, and the Vietnam War.
Forgot already?
History is causal.
You cannot change the mechanisms of causality.
Once that first step is taken, is IS NO WAY BACK.
The USA would be wise not to undertake that first step.
The North WON'T undertake that first step, because they are not stupid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt...
1
-
1
-
So British leaders bombed the British Empire into ruin.
Apparently, sending "bbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"-Lancs around to "flatten Germany", was a too expensive burden for a failing empire to shoulder...
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
Sorreeee. That's what happens when you make the wrong "fwiends".
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Nice exchange.
The current generation of kiddies can chant "Bomber Harris do it again" for all eternity.
It only cost the Brits their Empire...
Seems like a fair deal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mirandatarantella These chanters, like the OP, know nothing, but flaunt their opinions all over social media...
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
Their leaders admit it.
The sychphants chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Modus operandi.
PART II
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
-----------------------------------
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
§§§footnote
If you wish to know more about exactly how the British Empire was "being dismantled," respond...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"1911 Encyclopedia Britannica; Balance of Power;
The Nuttall Encyclopedia; Balance of Power ;
A phrase in international law for such a "just equilibrium" between the members of the family of nations as should. prevent any one of them from becoming sufficiently strong to enforce its will upon the rest. The principle involved in this, as Hume pointed out in his Essay on the Balance of Power…"
https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/Technology-of-war-in-1914
[Britannica]
In principle, not a bad thing.
Unfortunately, by 1914 the 2 "blocks" of alliance partners had completely skewed the old system of "balancing" the power of countries.
The two resulting blocks were fairly equally balanced in terms of GDP, military forces, education of the population, industrial might, technology, etc.
But concerning other criteria re. "power", like a strategic advantage, access to raw materials, population, global reach, etc. the Tripple Alliance was becoming rapidly "outbalanced" by the Tripple Entente, and intended to correct this resulting "imbalance".
European leaders had long foreseen the potential disaster of a "great war" scenario in times of modern warfare. Improvements in technology, meant ever more devastating weapons. Industrialization, the potential for all encompassing "total wars".
From Moltke the Elder in the mid-19th century [The days are gone by when, for dynastical ends, small armies of professional soldiers went to war to conquer a city, or a province, and then sought winter quarters or made peace. The wars of the present day call whole nations to arms.... The entire financial resources of the State are appropriated to military purposes...] to Churchill in 1901 [ We must not regard war with a modern Power as a kind of game….A European war cannot be anything but a cruel, heartrending struggle (ending) in the ruin of the vanquished and the scarcely less fatal commercial dislocation and exhaustion of the conquerors. —1901, 13 May, House of Commons]
The inflexibility of the alliance system would turn out to be the end of Europe.
According to common practice "states can pursue a policy of balance of power in two ways: by increasing their own power, as when engaging in an armaments race or in the competitive acquisition of territory; or by adding to their own power that of other states, as when embarking upon a policy of alliances." [Britannica]
Because none of the other powers were willing to address the increasing imbalance (as the years passed), Germany/Austria-Hungary set upon a path of increasing both their "power" as well as a more favorable strategic position, by allying with the Ottoman Empire.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93German_alliance
1
-
1
-
1
-
As long as Europeans view their European Civil War (1914-45) as a battle between good and evil, they will continue to lose by division.
The Chinese leadership recognized after WWII that their "Chinese Century of Humiliation" (1837-1947) had to be ended by first kicking out the outsiders (mercenary forces/Machiavelli). As long as Europeans (collective concept) continue to think in words rather than concepts, they will remain tools of a higher power. As long as Europeans continue to think in terms of "good/evil" rather than "European/outsider," they will remain tools of external "divisive forces."
The same applies to the Arabian Peninsula and everywhere else on the planet.
In Western narratives, from the Anglo-Saxon/Eurocentric worldview, a war in East Asia involving a multitude of ethnically, religiously, and linguistically related peoples is called a "civil war" (roughly spanning post-WW1 to post-WW2 East Asia/China) but for the same historians and storytellers, a war in Europe between a multitude of ethnically, religiously, and linguistically related peoples is a "world war" (roughly spanning WW1 and WW2). This is the logic of the "post-West world" (US/collective West), which tells the rest of the world that "our problem is your problem, but your problem is your problem," just as they have been doing for the past 500 years, and it's "just the way it is" and the "rules-based order."
Well, it's no longer the year 1600, or 1700, or 1800, or 1900, or even the year 2000.
Note that according to Machiavelli, the "princes" connected to the land and who benefited from their hereditary rule were also the GATEKEEPERS and were connected to what they saw as theirs. Whether one likes this style of inherited wealth and power or not, their role was the gatekeepers of being the managers of own affairs. Opposed to that, in strategy and human nature, the "mercenary" is the OUTSIDER (internationalists/globalists) who came/come or the profit and gain and who are NOT "connected" to the land and its peoples at all, and place their own interests, often vested interests, BEFORE the people who live on the land. This narrative is often distorted today into meaning that "to be a Machiavelli is to be an a-hole" which is a distortion of what the book was about. Machiavelli states clearly to keep ones "princes" in POWER, for to lose them would mean losing the GATEKEEPERS, who via their own vested interests, also protect the people who live in entire regions of the world. Via Trojan Horses, "democracies" can be CAPTURED (culturally-, economically-, politically-, emotionally and militarily), as a process which can be studied as the actors reveal themselves through their actions/events. This can be studied as systemic analyses.
----
Footnote:
"He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave." - Sir William Drummond
Become independent, if not then become the "D,S,A" (proxy) of someone else's dreams...
The arrogance of power is only arrogance of power as long as you have the power.
As soon as the "power" is gone, you remain stuck in your arrogance.
"Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be attained only by someone who is detached." - Simone Weil
If one bows down to a man-made system of power, one already brings to the table all the prejudices needed to become enslaved to a system.
"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn." - Alvin Toffler
If you spend too much time reading, and not thinking about what one is actually reading, one is no smarter than before reading a thousand books...
1
-
Yup.
Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
OPERATION UNTHINKABLE STATUS: BURIED
GB STATUS: BOMBED INTO TOTAL FINANCIAL BANKRUPTCY
BRITISH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STATUS: SUPERSEDED
PAX BRITANNICA STATUS: CANCELLED"
EMPIRE STATUS: GAME OVER
Reap as you sow counts for all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
History repeats itself in eternal cycles.
Bismarck's "something silly in the Balkans" has morphed into "something silly in the Ukraine".
Of course, Bismarck's quote is in reference to the age-old "contested sphere of influence", and big power ambitions.
At the time it was the Balkans.
Today it is the Black Sea/Ukraine, or simply "shifted east Balkans"-Bismarkian logic.
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
Of course the Ottoman Empire was not Europe's only "sick man" at the time.
The Ottoman Empire was weak, and therefore a favorite on "the European good guys" with their "shopping lists"-mentality.
Of course, the "always on the right side of history"-good guys have one main goal: "carving up" weakness.
That goal is eternal, always searching for weakness.
Of course in the late 19th-century, the Ottomans weren't the only failing empire, desperately trying to hold together their own past accomplishments (previously gained by a mixture of blood and diplomacy).
There were two others.
Of course Spain was the first weak empire on the American Internationalist's own "no more Monroe Doctrine restrictions"-shopping list of suitable weak empires.
The American Century needed divided "weany libruls" to succeed in their quest.
Easily explained empire 101...
Europe's other "sick man" was Austria-Hungary, and Berlin adamantly refused to throw her to the wolves.
Bad bad Berlin ...the "good guys" had an appetite and came with a vengeance.
Dissed girlfriend Russia of course intented to encircle Austria-Hungary, using the "poor people"-argument (aka "Pan Slavism").
And in the respect of "losing favored status" in the good guys' with their eternal games of divide and rule (favoratism):
Russia today.
Not such fun getting encroached upon, as Russia once did to "sick man" Austria-Hungary, and having own security issues ignored by the eternal good guys, right?
Not so great having historical spheres of influence carved up by "ICEBREAKER NATO" paving the way to new profitable EU/PNAC markets, eh?
Shouting "poor me" in "the game" of default good guys/default bad guys, when own interests to dominate and rule over others, using human lives as "tools" not working out anymore?
Why don't your leaders roll out the old "protector of all slavs"-trope again, hmmmm?
Suddenly "Russian power" as a "tool" don't suite the "good guys" anymore, and the own Moscow interests ("security issues": remember that term for a while) get thrown out the back door.
Not so much fun anymore when you are "in the shoes" of others, right?
What happened to those eternal dreams of access to the Med for your navy and the own projection of power (Mahan)? Today Russia doesn't even fully control the Black Sea anymore, and St Petersburg/Moscow geostategic goals/aims have been thrown back over the last 30 years, step by step, back 200 years to the 18th century when it all started.
Not such fun if one isn't on the "default good guy list" anymore...
Today, Moscow's dream of "top down influence in Turkey" (Erdogan/Turkish state access to the Med, janking Turkey out of NATO) is being countered by western economical warfare on the Turkish state. Watch on while the next bloody "bottom up" orange revolution is being set up by "the good guys" with the cash, creating the next "poor people"-argument for the primed/conditioned masses back home in front of their TVs...impervious in regards to "what happened". They just want the feelgood story, so too bad...
Back to "good ol' days" when Imperialist Russia was still "best fwiends":
Of course during the "good ol' days" of "friendly entente Russia", St. Petersburg/Russia could appease Belgrade in their quest of destabilising their neighboring state (Austria-Hungary) in their violent nationalist quest for Nacertanije and carving up Austria-Hungary. St Petersburg could try to misuse known Serb ambitions for Greater Serbia (openly known since 1906) for the own goal of destabilising the Balkans for own geopolitical goals (access to the Med via the Dardanelles), as the "entente good guys" turned a blind eye. Being a "good guy" herself, Russia could set out to misuse Serbs as a "human wall" in lieu of overly obvious direct state influence, to stop a potential alliance between Berlin and the Ottoman Empire becoming viable. The "usefull tool" aka "Entente partner" St Petersburg had the tacid permission and could appease Belgrade and convert the previous Austrian-Hungarian sphere of influence (Serbia) into a "tool" to create a security issue for Austria-Hungary (potential two-front war danger for Vienna/Budapest).
Note how the "good guys" create "poor people"-arguments directed at Moscow today, the same way that the predecessor St. Petersburg created "poor people"-arguments against the object of their desire...Austria-Hungary.
The "regular run" of history is of course that "poor slavs" trapped in an Imperialist Russia (conquered, brutalized and oppressed) is perfectly OK, but Serbs trapped in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire just screams for a "historical adjustment". Go figure...
Anyway.
What happened to these "party times" when the good guys told you you could do no harm?
Doesn't everybody just love becoming encroached upon and encircled?
Let's ask Russians today how they feel about "encroachment/encirclement".
Not so nice, eh?
(Google "hypocrisy")
The same "security issues" St Petersburg once created for Austria-Hungary, suddenly don't sound so "cool" anymore, when the shoe is on the other foot.
Biblical history (and 2,000-year old observations re. human nature), unfolding again, right in front of our eyes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century, just like every other POTUS in history. Some might have been more openly imperialistic, but they all served an expansive empire.
Peace? YES.
Idolatry? No.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Fact is that Trump, or any other previous admin, did not stop this "(systemic) slow march".
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemony.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quiet or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
Just claim hero status for the self, and blame everybody else for everything which goes wrong.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Already predicted. Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperMukama The question posed to Asians (mainly Chinese and Indians/citizens within these borders) remains the same as during the era of imperialism 200 or 300 years ago.
The obfuscators and dividers will use the same techniques in reasoning as they use in politics: they will "hop around" on criteria, causing dissention in debates on the micro level (society), in the same way the power players "hop around" on entire countries/governments/capital cities/key politicians in geopolitics on the macro level...
The technique of "divide and rule"...
Hop over here, hop over there, whatever standpoint brings the own short-term advantage, because THE POWER has the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of not having to suffer consequences from it's own actions.
The question posed to all Asians remains.
Whether they can see that they are in the same positions they were in 200 and 300 years ago.
The dividers come with "promises" which they mostly don't intend keeping, or offer "treaties" (in which these dividers themselves hold the geographical advantage of distance), make all kinds of excuses why the dividers don't keep their promises, or why the dividers don't suffer the same percentage of harmfull effects in times of crisis/war as the "chosen ones", just like 200 or 300 years ago. These promises are very enticing to power players, and offer the prospect of glory and achievement to the side the promises are made to, just like 200 or 300 years ago...
Anthony Blinken making some Indians FEEL (§§§, see footnote) very proud with repeated offers of NATO membership, just like previous US admins made such promises to the Ukriane, which no doubt made many Ukrainians FEEL very proud, and then the dividers with the geographical advantage, subsequently citing all kinds of "difficulties" why such "pwomises" then cannot be effected in a short timespan.
Meanwhile, exposing the "Ukraine"/proxy to extreme danger as the feet were dragged and dragged and dragged...
Of course, in the game called divide and rule, it is not the fact THAT it is a ridiculous offer, in view of recent events in the Ukraine exposing the danger of such folly, but rather the fact THAT such an offer is repeated. The fact THAT the offer is on the table, already causes mistrust/dissention amongst ASIAN neighbors.
Of course, if India refuses, the divider (of Asia), Washington DC can simply go to China and "promise Taiwan" to Beijing (signed away) in return for a deal, to surround Russia. The potential for "divide and rule" rests on the side with the geographical advantage, as long as the targets for division do not unite, specifically with a comprehensive Asian security agreement.
The question to Asians remains the same.
What are they going to do to create a SINGLE HEGEMONY (alliance) in East Asia, in order to speak with a united voice, against the POWER of division.
BRICS is not enough.
Any other deal or treaty, or the SCO in the current setup, or even the "UN's" laws and the "rules based order" cannot stand up to the POWER of divide and rule.
It needs a comprehensive security agreement for all of those in the FRACTURE ZONE 4 (stretching from North Pole, via Japan, Taiwan, through Thailand, the Indian subcontinent, towards the Middle East).
If no comprehensive security agreement is achieved, mutually beneficial for all, then simply wait for 200/300 year history to return ("rhyme")...
Or are Indian leaders like... first they came for Russia, but I did not care because I was not Russian. Then they came for China, but I did not care because I was not Chinese, and even saw an advantage for myself (economy) if China got "carved up" and weakened...
Indian leaders: It'll be great, if WE can CONTROL the WATER flowing into China, from Tibet...such tempting "offers" and promises...
"Around 1900" repeating for Tibet.
Finally though, if everything is burning, divided, in quagmire of revolution and war, and Asia the "new Middle East" as unfolded after the 1882 British invasion, followed up closely by the "Sir Lawrence"-types as the dividers of Arabs". The modern day version of that being the "Anthony Blinkens" of the world, finger pointing, and harsh language between neighboring states, and a tumbling towards "quagmire"-status, then who will speak up for India when the dividers come for you?
DESIRABLE OUTCOME in any divide and rule system: The dividers will subsequently have the "upper hand/higher ground" (leverage) of POWER for all future negotiations with the resulting "statelets", just like the ME after World War 1.
The secret towards more Indian "power" lies in the continued "power" of its neighbors, not these neighbors' weakness.
§§§Footnote: The appeal to emotion
Setting up the emotions generated by billions of minds, to set these minds up against each other, just like 200 or 300 years ago...
1
-
1
-
@susannestrange4299 China is the center of the new "Axis of Evil" (lol), aided by Russia the "new Hitler" (super lol), because it uses its power to try to create international unity amongst the weaker states (aka global south), to stand up to the division poured upon the world`s less well-off by the rich collective West. These "rich" preach with one hand, and sow division with the other, to siphon off excessive gains to themselves. In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
The Global North, which has siphoned off more than 50% of the world's wealth and resources for centuries, are of course the "Axis of the Goody Two Shoes" (lol again).
And that 50% as "my cut" is what they did. It was simply the statement to keep up the systemic exploitation of weaker systems, to rule by division, wherever these weaker systems were, to uphold the power of the top tiers, hidden behind the nice-sounding stories of always just wanting to "help". Really? After 500 years of so-called "just helping out", there still isn't a just global balance of power? How long until the effects of "helping" come trickling down?
China's Century of Shame: 2024 Version.
If one understands what happened to China during their "Century of Humiliation," means that one then already has the template to understand what is happening today. One can use the historical "template" and apply it in the same manner. What happened to China during that era, is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today. Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the local little minions benefiting from the outside POWER of imperialism, who had been given gifts and promises, to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) crises into "eternal problems," sit by and do nothing as problems foment into violence, revolutions, and wars, or carry out other forms of privatized interference (corporatism) under government protection, or without. Whatever works, details really REALLY DON'T MATTER. Once "fomented troubles" rise out of hand, claim to "just want peace." Then use the little minions as favourites (favouritism = a technique within the "divide and rule" strategy of power) to destabilize an entire region, steer them against other weaker entities, and/or employ them as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regions as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc. In case of war, try to delay getting involved until an opportune moment, them sweep in a gain advantages, often obscure ones in strategy not immediately clear to the unconnected base of the pyramids...
See the footnote, for an independent analysis of the strategy, from another era, and different set of "interacting powers." Whatever works for the desired region to be divided/conquered or where CONTROL and domination is required for the favoured economic systems of gain will be implemented. There is no way that current day Chinese leaders will not have learnt their very own historical lesson, and allow their very own history to repeat/rhyme, and allow such outside meddling in the own systems to gain traction, AGAIN for a second time. Every nation or state has its own "Never again!" European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonic ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon. These citizens, usually around 50% of entire populations, suffer directly (the "heating or eating"-crowd last winter), or indirectly (soaring inflation), and therefore simply not having enough money to save to cover a sudden emergency. These are all "effects," not to be confused with "causes" (see concept of retro causality, one of the most easily misused ways to skew a timeline of events). Some eventually even end up in the muddy trenches.
If you live in the West, and don't know any of this history, or don't care what 1.4 BILLION Chinese think, or intend not to "get involved": it doesn't matter what YOU think.
See the essay in this comments section, about 7-8 years ago, as the "encirclement of China, as history rhyming" as the strategies are repeated. It was originally written about 10 years ago, as a short comment based on the observed reality at the time.
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans/Eurasians by using entire groups/nations/countries as proxies, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their (temporary) GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
With re. to how tools are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
No, this is not just some or other random anecdotal evidence, but an age-old strategy of power. Note also, that a "plan" and the strategy to effect the plan, are two different things. Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as the USA implemented "dissent by other means" (Clausewitz), to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combated by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today. MORE than sufficient evidence for this, in the below comments section. Outsiders intent on playing the game, use the revolutionary spirit, in order to hop onto useful dissent, strengthen it, and insert levers which they can pry open to gain own advantages. Beijing is certainly 100% aware of this, so everything you are witnessing today is a political EFFECT, not a political "cause" as some leaders wish to mislead us towards.
Everything you are being told about Berlin, in stages after 1894, 1904, 1907, and 1912, with gathering momentum, were EFFECTS, not CAUSES. That was, based on observation, outside powers with the intention to "divide and rule" Europe, by encroaching/encircling the major continental power, which has never changed throughout recent modern history. It started with the encirclement of Germany (by Russia/France) and continued with the encirclement of Austria-Hungary, nodded off politically/strategically by London in 1904, and 1907. The strategists in Washington DC would have been surely extremely pleased by these unfolding events (see the comment below this one). The ONLY factor which changed over the last few centuries, was the "major continental power" which had to be CONTROLLED by the outside power who wanted a competitive advantage. It continued after WW2, and the main thing that saved the planet from WW3, was the fact that nukes (MAD) meant that those used to push and push until something snapped, had to be more cautious this time.
The historical parallel, as the "Chinese Century of Shame"-historicity, and is well-known at least to the 1.4 billion inhabitants of China today. The template therefore predicts a similar outcome, that of the more encroachment/encirclement, the more likeliness of the "breakout attempt" in some possible future.
Obvious solution for a more stable world, stop the encroachment/encirclement, and stop the use of people caught within lines drawn on the map, as instruments of power.
Both historically (post-1900) as well as our recent history (post-2000) there seems little incentive for those with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to do so, but rather the repeated attempts to search for tools to do such encroachment/encirclement FOR the outside power/s intent on gain.
(Footnote: For more information on this technique of top-down power aka divide-and-rule/conquer, go to the Sowell vid on YT about how Rome conquered Britain. History rhymes, because the strategists repeat the strategies of power, which are limited in number. That might have been a looooong time ago, but the strategies are still being applied proactively today, meaning that YOU (the reader), your family and friends, are being set up again. Voltaire — "History never repeats itself. Man always does.")
Personal advice: Try to "get it." Ignore the dissenters.
1
-
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage.
Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating families. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Never a "price tag" for own actions...
Right?
WRONG
Brits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends".
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"...
And after the war ended?
They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946).
Did they ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not.
Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS/GLOBALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS/MILITARISTS. Their branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Strategic ambiguity is generally defined as "purposefully being vague to derive personal or organizational benefit." Zaremba, A. J. (2010).
Or as the street would say, "sticking the finger in every pie possible everywhere, anytime, but mum's the word..."
Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.
Too much intent on short-term gain, at the expense of long-term stability, leads to the foundations of an empire (any "empire") or corporation turning into the "clay" of the famous symbolism/idiom: Warrior with clay feet.
In this regard, the turn of the previous century offers many examples of "nails in the coffin" of the British Empire, and allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 to expire, rather than morphing it into something more suitable for the times, is an example of "clay feet" rapidly being created. Along with similar turn of the century examples, like the 2nd Boer War, and not pushing for a more united Europe, being other examples of "clay feet" created which evtl. led to the topling of the "warrior" called the British Empire.
The most compelling argument (on the surface) against renewing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 was made by Canada. Of course the fear of being dragged into of a war between Japan and the USA via London/GB/British Empire, for whatever reason, would have hit Canada hardest. Therefore an argument against a treaty with Japan is compelling...but also false.
At the time, the issue was mainly China.
Fact: The isn't a single example of a nation or state being "forced" into a war its hawks did not already find desirable or inevitable, etc.
It would have been fairly simple to morph the existing Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1911, to exclude any acts of provocation or aggression by Japan. That way, in case it was Japan which was pushing for trouble, London/GB could have taken action to restrict it (by stating that Japan would be on its own if it provoked a war with the USA, and ignoring warnings in re. to such). Another factor often forgotten, is that within the British Empire, the Domininions had gained the rights to declare war themselves. Unlike colonies like India, which London held the right to declare war on behalf of, nobody could force Canada to become involved in a war, and a declaration of neutrality was always an option.
Of course, in a decent world, nobody would dare invade a neutral, so that Canada was safe under all foreseeable circumstances (at least "de jure").
The argument "Empire potentialy drawn into a war started by Japan" at some point after WW1 is invalid, and therefore other reasons for not extending the treaty must have existed, which are clouded by secrecy even up to today.
In regards to keeping the Anglo-Japanese Treaty intact, and granting the Japanese nation the "honor" of becoming equals at Versailles.
According to Machiavelli, it would also have been a wise step towards saving the British Empire (along with ending the short-sighted European habit of "creating pariahs per treaty"). The argument usually raised here is "yeah..but the Japs didn't want everybody to be racially equal, so duh..."
True.
The "totally un-racist" London (lol) could have outflanked the equally racist leaders in Tokyo, who just advocated "racial equality" for themselves of course, and advocated for "racial equality" as a general obligation or declaration of intent, for all races.
Machiavelli...
What did Machiavelli say about the real value of mercenary armies you must pay (money as incentive) to do own bidding?
"And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress; and mercenaries doing nothing except damage." Nicolo Machiavelli, 1505
Obviously, money is a great incentive to "sign up" for something, but it offers less incentive to die for a cause one isn't exactly a fan of...
Starting around 1900, but especially after the financial "slap on the wrist" of WW1, the Lords in London could and should have turned masses of "inferiors per desired outcome" in their crumbling Empire into a "Pound block of equals".
They could have turned the masses of "inferiors" all over the world, into "armies of equals".
The old strategies again proving themselves almost 100% correct, for when the time came (1940) GB found itself "alone on the beaches and in the hills", rather than have millions of "equals" turning up to fight for a common cause. Own previous failures, simply offered the incentive for "masses of inferiors" to "sit on the fence" to await the outcome for own causes.
Combined in mutually beneficial alliances, rather than "inferior mercenies" which came from "colonies", to create mutually protecting dominion-like independent/suzerein states in a re-organized soft-power empire was the option not taken. Unfortunately, the spineless and equally racist "hero lords" in London, unwilling to stand up to wrongs, did not understand even this most simplest of logic, and therefore lost their inheritance (Empire).
"The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonorably, foolishly, viciously." Julian Barnes
Everything you've been made to recite as a "chest thump/cool move"-moment in history, like Versailles or allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty to lapse without a replacement, simply just another nail in their own coffin of "Empire".
The gatekeepers in London (starting "around 1900"), a total failure.
Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.
You don't become "the best", if you finger-point at someone "bad".
You don't become "high IQ", if you consider someone else "low IQ".
You don't become "smart", if you laugh at someone "stupid".
You don't become "more superior" if you look down at someone you've termed "inferior".
1
-
1
-
Lies and hypocrisy are a dead giveaway of a divide-and-rule strategy. A strategy of divide-and-rule does not intend to be "fair", but sets out to impose unfair "rulings" top-down...
A 125 years ago Central Europe's neighboring regions set out to encircle and encroach on Germany and Austria-Hungary, something these states would never have found as acceptable, if done unto them by any coalition of powers. A clear cut case of hypocrisy.
Today the USA/collective West can only "win" if the rest of the world "loses" (zero sum reality of the globalized world).
The group that can divide all other groups, and avoid them from uniting into larger entities, will rule over all the others.
Such "rulings" are accompanied by acts of favor, or "favoratism," and favoratism is another dead giveaway of an active policy of divide-and-rule.
It's divide-and-rule/conquer.
They grew into North America using this technique, gained North American hegemony using this technique, gained global hegemony using this technique, and are now using the divide-and-rule technique as desperate attempt to hang on to global hegemony...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Neither was Churchill or the other lords still "fighting the last war", as that saying goes.
In their effort to hang on to their Empire, they made the wrong "friends"...
One their one side, there was the USA. But Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
On the other side of Europe, there was the other "friend": Stalin.
Stalin however, figured out that the Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. What are you going to do about it?"
1
-
1
-
The sunk cost fallacy moment is nearing fast.
It's "1916" on the timeline for Europe/Eurasia...AGAIN.
The collective hive mind in the capital cities in the USA/collective West (Allies 1916 = NATO post-1990) must decide soon whether to "write the Ukraine off" or "invest more". Do not expect a wise answer from those who do not intend to suffer from any effects their own decisions will result in. According to the strategies of the wise, it states "if all else fails, retreat" (see the 36 stratagems of power).
They want their "Versailles moment" as "victory"...AGAIN.
Only this time, a different region has to be "carved up" and used...
The framers/manipulators in power have already "tried everything else" and failed, but do not expect them to "retreat" and lose their "investments." They will "Pivot to Asia" (Iran, South China Sea, or thereabouts) and sacrifice your daughter (current debates) before they send their own sons off to the wars they have lain the foundations for. That was not different around 1900, than it was around the year 2000.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FREEDOM vs. CONSCRIPTION
I just came here from a video with thousands of angry comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, Germans, Poles, etc. stating "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go", or anger at incompetent politicians. They mirror those made by thousands of comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand how power works. It does not matter what they think. It was what millions of young men already said a century ago in the leadup to their governments' declarations of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me".
JOHN MEARSHEIMER THEORY/SYSTEMIC ANALYSIS
There can only be a few "winners". The rest are the systemic cannon fodder for the gain of those who pass the buck. The "buck passer" is of course the weakest of all minds. Democratic systems of course offer the perfect environments for the opportune to practice eternal "passing the buck": none of these leaders ever did anything wrong (sic.), nobody ever decided anything bad (sic.), nobody ever lied, and everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and lower-tiered finger-pointers...
Here is what they did in both cases (around 1900, and again around the year 2000). Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power in times of peace, by the aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) by men who knew that neither they, nor their own offspring or friends, would ever have to face the consequences of an own unjustifiable standpoint. That means doing to another state/country/alliance what they would never consider acceptable, if done onto them: encircle them, encroach on them, restrict a fair access to the globe's resources.
How do we know this is true?
Because it actually happened, and can be observed.
"I no longer listen to what people say, I just watch what they do. Behavior never lies." - Winston Churchill
Yes, Winnie. What can be observed, and plotted on the map, is not a "lie".
Humdeedum some time passes. By golly, no more personal "freedom", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the muddy trench to enforce Step 1. Guess who "wins"? The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup over the world. Those who hold the GEOGRAPHICALLY opportune advantage of the "higher ground" or the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries.
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@myhandlewastakenandIgaveup Unfortunately, this channel doesn't allow me to add links, so I'll repost it without:
@012345678 9876543210 Yes, the word "fact" would be wrong.
The word "assumption" or "strong suspicion" would align with the facts created after WW2, when the USA took over as the Nr.1 from GB (London). Of course, the 2 superpowers scenario of the Cold War is taken for granted as true, so how did it get to that?
Because Washington DC sent US soldiers to fight for The American Century, not the British Century. After WW2, the American Century refused to give London nukes to stand up to the commies, and reclaim Empire's Balance of Power on the continent (aka "The Percentages Agreement, or "shared British interests" with the SU).
Facts:
1) before 1945, there was a European "Balance of Power" dictated by London at Versailles, which protected the British Empire and favored British interests, and
2) a post-1945 there was a Global "Balance of Power" determined by Washington, and which favored Washington's interests
Washington DC silently followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
[Google: wiki/American_Century]
If in 1945, London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles", like happened in 1919 against US wishes (14 points), with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up power" on the continent to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
[Google: britannica
topic/balance-of-power]
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
[Google: Operation_Unthinkable 1945]
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West". With a simple 'no' to Unthinkable, Washington DC had taken over the role of nr.1 in the the world.
In view of these events, it is safe to assume that when Eisenhower said "beware of the Military Industrial Complex", he was simply stating something which already existed defacto.
As individuals, most Americans never conceded to the role of "World Policemen".
One day it was suddenly there, and nobody asked any voter for permission to end isolation.
1
-
@myhandlewastakenandIgaveup Yes, excellent essay, and something I've always thought.
In fact when Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter, he must have instinctively felt that it meant "game over" for the British Empire, built on "top down" domination and exploitation.
The USAs approach with indirect rule fitted the 20th century far better.
At the time (late-19th/early 20th century) the leaders of the British Empire seemed to have held the mistaken idea that closer relations with the USA would guarantee their Empire against "greedy continental rivals", but they were wrong.
They were looking in the wrong direction.
Because, the type of rule or economy or political model chosen, plays little role in the outcome of whether one "rules the world" or not.
Geography plays a far bigger role.
So at the turn of century London "ruled the world" because geography isolated them from the continent and their island status gave them the upper hand at a time when war was still the common way to determine "top dog" or not. They could play out the ambitions of rulers on the continent against each other (see Balance of Power), always siding with the weaker waring state or empire, and thereby "engineer" solutions which they perceived would guarantee the survival of their Empire.
When development of weapons produced ever further reaching weapons of war, GB's island status did not offer the same measure of protection anymore...so they went down.
The weapons of 1900 couldn't harm the British Empire, but the weapons of 1945 could, as you aptly pointed out.
In that era around WW2, it was the USA which was (as the sole power) isolated from this "great game", and benefited as the result of its geographical isolation...
[Today, with nukes, that "logic" of using (or rather "misusing") conventional wars to become top dog does not apply anymore].
US leaders like Wilson (WW1) or Roosevelt (WW2) knew they just had to wait long enough for European leaders to dismantle what 500 years of empire building had achieved, and to pick up the pieces.
Not that I mourn their passing. They were injust and cruel, resulting in endless misery and too much one-way benefit.
That movement of "going west" (Manifest Destiny = N. America, followed by Monroe Dictrine = N and S. American) started with the consolidation of power with the Civil War, and ended when US President Eisenhower forced GB and France (together with Israel) to stand down in the Suez Crisis. For all practical reasons ending the period in history when London or Paris got to decide on the defense or the expansion of their spheres of influence...
If it wasn't yet quite clear who the alpha male was, and who the beta males...that was it. Of course, all conveyed in very friendly manner, and very diplomatically, as usual :-)
In that respect, there were many visionary US leaders.
The end of WW2, simultaneously spelled the end of European dominance of world affairs, and Pax Britannica.
Not that they did a really good job of it, because (the openly proclaimed) "Pax Britannica" and (secret backroom deal by a few London lords) "Policy of Balance of Power" created the conflict of interest which would lead to the end of Europe.
It takes a bit of thinking, but that's what happened.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage.
Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating families. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Never a "price tag" for own actions...
Right?
WRONG
Brits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends".
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"...
And after the war ended?
They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946).
Did they ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not.
Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next. Hopped into extinction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The question why it took GB 7 years after WW2, to carry out their 1st nuclear test, even though the technology had already been developed by international scientist (also British) before 1945.
Because its the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and "cute Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world really works...
Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world "you shall not have nuclear weapons!"
[Google how that unfolded with: "history/british-nuclear-program]
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
1945 Washington DC: "If you want nukes, develop them yourself. In the meantime, I'll dismantle your empire. What are you going to do about it?"
That's how leverage works.
Rule Britannia, replaced by the American Century.
Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana.
Why didn't Washington DC/The American Century give their "special friends" the secret of nuclear bombs in 1945?
A great question...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
True.
Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised. "Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
1
-
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better.
Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power.
In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was pushover...
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." (end of)
There is no doubt that Washington DC is attempting to repeat this "success" (pov) in the rising powers of Asia.
The strategy can be observed to be implemented in the same way as was set up post-1900 in Europe, but in Europe the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer theory) were Great Britain and France.
Today, it is India being used in the same role as France was 100 years ago. In case of a wider war in Asia, as India is set up against China, qui bono if all lose?
The technique Washington DC employed up to the year 2000, is an almost exact repeat of the technique they used to overpower Europe around the year 1900: DIVIDE AND RULE.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why?
Simple.
Zionist is the "lapdog" of western influence in the ME, and the British Empire was the "alpha male" (late 19th/early 20th century).
Today, the British Empire has been replaced by the USA (the Brits ran away from the sh*tstorm they caused in 1948, tail between the legs).
Today, "Washington" is the alpha male, Zionism is still the lapdog. Israel, is a "tool" of Washington's policy of divide and rule, not the other way round.
Israel is a child of the Cold War. When the hegemonic power (British Empire) ran off, leaving the region in a power vacuum, a new hegemon simply stepped in and took over. Israel was financed and supported as a tool of western influence in an otherwise "Moscow" dominated ME (along with Saudi Arabia, etc.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sure you did....
"Since World War II, during a supposed golden age of peace, the United States military has killed or helped kill some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 84 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. The United States is responsible for the deaths of 5 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and over 1 million just since 2003 in Iraq.
Since 2001, the United States has been systematically destroying a region of the globe, bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, not to mention the Philippines. The United States has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces in three-quarters of them."
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." -- Walter E. Williams
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lexbor3511 I get what you are saying, but must disagree because the law clearly leaves it open to make arrangements.
In case a potential "gold digger" is after a rich self-made guy, and he doesn't sign a prenuptial agreement, it is his own fault for being dumb.
If 2 people get married, both poor, and they make it later on ( without the prenup), then the success is really both parties success. Generally, the man could not have "made it big" without somebody covering his back, taking care of the house and kids, social events, etc.
I agree that there are certainly millions of "bitches" out there, as there are also millions of "arseholes". Marrying one without a prenup could be a costly mistake, yes....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
Yes, stay out of the world's troubles, created by systems of greed seeking to create and gain from the flames they fan all over the world, hiding behind their stories of "good intentions."
"When two neighbouring countries fight each other, just know the USA visited one." - Nelson Mandela (Region: Southern Africa/Big picture timestamp: Cold War).
The statement is not quite correct. When two neighbours fight each other, just know that an empire has been there previously.
It's the old joke that "If two fish are fighting, the British Empire has been there."
It is a truism about imperialism in general, and how divide-and-rule works.
Set up neighbours against each other, using a variety of ever-consistent techniques and strategies. With absolute certainty, the tribal leaders of Europe joked the same way about the Roman Empire 2000 years ago, as these outsiders/Romans plus proxies, openly flaunted their "Pax Romana" whilst in the background covertly favouring one "local neighbour", whilst setting them up against the others, using whatever reasoning it wanted.
Outsiders will come to a state (also covertly politically or via NGOs as the strategy of "cultural- and political capture"), and these outsiders try to lay down the foundation for division by setting up the "new-found friend" against its neighbours and if it is unsuccessful in one "state" (status quo), it will simply go to the neighbours and try the same. The more neighbours, the more chances of a successful division of powers, which is beneficial to the "divider". The more "neighbors", the merrier the games. Because if these neighbours all end up squabbling and fighting, the "divider" vacuums off gains (of various kinds) in the background. Such implemented and leveraged divisions do not necessarily stem from evil intent, since most of the participants in a divide-and-rule strategy have absolutely no idea that they have become "actors" in a great game, the scope of which they remain ignorant of. Even those with good intentions (political doves) can create division.
1
-
1
-
Excellent comment.
Most human beings living in symbiosis of systems either don't have the skill to recognize bad actors, nor the inclination to remove them since it is tangentially beneficial to own favored systems, or have become directly entrapped by the "gain models" (pyramids) lead by such bad actors. An example of this would be the case of Oliver North, whose psychopathic dealings were rewarded by "the system" with a highly paid management position (NRA). It doesn't seem to bother sufficient decent people enough to make such "management styles" impossible (effect a "stopper" against such models de jure or de facto). Indeed, based on observation, and looking back in history it can therefore be concluded that such behaviour is only given a "slap on the wrist", and therefore continues in "good empires". Studies have shown that models based on "intent of gain", like capitalism, have rates of people with psychopathic tendencies as high as 20%. Compare that reality to the average for a normal society, or usual non-gain models of cooperation, which is around a "1% psycho saturation rate". There is no reason to believe other models of "intent of gain" (like politics) do not have similar high rates of psychos.
All empires as collectives of individuals have by nature, psychopathic and bullying tendencies. Note that the "Hollywood image" of the "psycho" and "the bully" is far removed from reality. The unfortunate reality is that most psychopaths/bullies remain undetected, and undetectable, because they manipulate entire groups of "non-psychos/non-bullies" into following them as beneficiaries, who then start entire campaigns of coverups and deception themselves.
These psychopathic traits are generally considered to be common traits, and are defined: stated where these individual traits overlap with governments:
- have split personalities (the political reality of "doves" and "hawks" coexisting in one "brain")
- they are narcissistic (constantly pointing the finger "outwards" in attempts at deflecting from own actions and goals)
- they have "brains" (governments) which control, or misconstruct data
- scheme for own gain (policies, doctrines, and the likes of that)
- use manipulative strategies as tools in order to mislead billions of people
These bad actors and deceivers are allowed "to play", to lie and deceive, telling their inhabitants things like "all we want is peace", whereas in reality there are elements pushing for eternal war which benefits the systems they represent.
Footnotes/key words for further research:
* 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
* Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
* The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
1
-
The concept of an "occupation" seems to be hard to grasp.
The landgrabs after the 6-Day War were illegal according to international law. Waging a "preventive war" or a "war of choice" was not illegal, but all the subsequent landgrabs were.
According to international law, these territories are therefore still "occupied".
" ...We had three wars which we fought without an alternative. The first, the war of independence, which began on Nov. 30, 1947 and lasted until January 1949 ...The second war of no alternative was the Yom Kippur War and the war of attrition that preceded it ... Our other wars were not without an alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice ... In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation." -- Menachem Begin, Aug. 8, 1982, Israeli National Defense College
Begin stated clearly that Israel had fought three wars before which it had a "choice," meaning Israel started the wars. In legal terms, this is known as "preventive war," which is not illegal. However, taking land against international law after such a war, is illegal. Note that fluffy language like "in the noblest sense of the word," highlighted above, is not a legal term but gangsta talk.
Israel is still the occupying power.
That is what the law states. One can whine about laws, but that doesn't change a law. Everything one can come up with in defense of Israel, will automatically mean apologia for the occupying force. Everything one states, either ignores or apologizes for the stronger side in a conflict, which is enforcing an illegal occupation.
Every conversation which does not stress the fact that one side is the occupier, the other side the resistance, is biased towards imperialism.
Every news report must start with explaining who the occupation power is, so as not to confuse the timeline.
1
-
1
-
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
PragerU spinning again.
Crime is a socio-economic problem.
"According to the latest FBI report detailing the most dangerous cities in the country.
Of the fifty most crime-ridden cities on our list, all but fifteen were located east of New Mexico and south of the Mason-Dixon line. Other notable hot spots were Michigan, with six of the fifty most dangerous cities, and New Mexico, with three cities that made our list.
Opioid addiction and loose gun laws no doubt contribute to the violence in the region. However, lay the map of poverty in the US over that of crime and the two are almost a perfect match.
Take, for example, Anniston, Alabama. With thirty-three violent crimes and seventy-seven property crimes per 1,000 people, this town experiences more crime per capita than anywhere else in the country. Meanwhile, nearly a third of its 22,000 residents live in poverty. From the smallest towns (Wellston, Michigan, and Bel-Ridge, Missouri) to the biggest cities on the list (Detroit and Memphis), the poverty level remains stubbornly high at a fourth to a third of the population."
[Safewise.com]
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century, just like every other POTUS in history. Some might have been more openly imperialistic, but they all served an expansive empire.
Peace? YES.
Idolatry? No.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Fact is that Trump, or any other previous admin, did not stop this "(systemic) slow march".
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemony.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quiet or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
Just claim hero status for the self, and blame everybody else for everything which goes wrong.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Already predicted. Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zwischen „das Jahr 1900“ und „das Jahr 2000“ hat sich nichts wirklich geändert.
Diejenigen, die durch TEILUNG zu herrschen wollten, sind immer noch die gleichen Leute, nur leicht veränderte Systeme.
Apartheid = teile und herrsche
Apart = getrennt = teilen.
Versuchen Sie nicht, die Strategie zu verbergen, indem Sie neue Begriffe erfinden. Nur die Schwächsten werden nie zugeben, was sie tun.
Kritische Frage: Wie kontrolliert eine Minderheit eine Mehrheit? Wie kontrolliert ein weit entferntes Imperium eine große Gruppe von Menschen? Richtige Antwort: Benenne die Außenseitergruppe eine „potenzielle Tyrannei“ und TEILE sie in kleine Gruppen.
Auf die GETEILTEN werden von den Spaltern von außen in langsamen, inkrementellen Schritten „Zwietracht gesät“.
Alle historischen europäischen Weltreiche, einschließlich das Britische Empire, waren natürlich „Apartheidreiche“, da sie standardmäßig zwei-/dreistufige Systeme hatten.
Sie praktizierten die Strategie "Teile und Herrsche" als politische Maßnahme, genau wie es die südafrikanischen Machtsysteme in Südafrika taten, nicht nur innerhalb der eigenen Grenzen, sondern auch darüber hinaus.
Apart = getrennt = teilen.
TEILE und kontrolliere/herrsche.
HERRSCHAFT durch SPALTUNG.
Eine global operierende HEGEMONIE kann ebenso überall auf der Welt dieselben Teile-und-kontrolliere/herrsche-Spiele spielen, und die Grenzen müssen sich nie ändern, um die „Spiele“ spielen zu können. Die früheren HEGEMONEN hatten den Einfluss, um das Prinzip „Teile und Herrsche“ als politische Maßnahme zu praktizieren, genau wie es die Machtsysteme von Washington DC in den USA taten, und zwar nicht nur innerhalb der eigenen Grenzen, sondern auch darüber hinaus.
Um Spiele zu spielen, müssen sich die Grenzen nie ändern. Alles, was man braucht, ist MACHT, ein Regelwerk, um allen anderen Befehle zu erteilen, und eine Position der Straffreiheit bei Rückschlägen. Die Einstellung ist dann, dass jemand anderes die Rechnung bezahlen kann, wenn etwas schiefgeht, und dann herumstolzieren kann als ob die Sonne aus dem eigenen Sie-wissen-schon-was scheine. Dabei immer schon mit dem Finger auf die GESPALTETEN zeigen. Immer ZEIGEN...
Heute erzählen uns unsere leicht zu täuschenden westlichen Anführer im selbsternannten „guten Westen“ dass es Frieden geben wird, solange alle dem Glaubenssystem anhängen, dass „die Grenzen sich niemals ändern dürfen“. Jeder, der die etablierten Grenzen ändert, ist „böse“ (es sei denn natürlich, es sind die eigenen Hauptstädte oder ihre Stellvertreter, die dies tun: dann wird es „gerechtfertigt“, indem mit dem Finger auf andere gezeigt wird).
Der psychologische Begriff dafür, wenn Menschen andere für etwas beschuldigen, was sie selbst getan haben oder tun, ist fast immer Projektion, wenn es um irgendeine Form von Gewinn geht, wie etwa in der Politik. Die Allegorie des „mit dem Finger zeigen, drei Finger zeigen zurück“ ist auch genau richtig, denn der „zeigende Finger“ wird meist von sehr lautstarker Theatralik begleitet, während die „drei Finger“ verborgen bleiben. Die alte Allegorie deutet auf Kausalität hin, denn eigene frühere Handlungen, die verschwiegen werden, sind auch die URSACHE des „zeigenden Fingers“, auf den der Fingerzeiger abzulenken versucht. Es ist Teile derselben Hand. Dies ist nicht nur eine Allegorie, sondern auch eine Machtstrategie, die Politiker und andere systemische Gewinnmodelle verwenden, um abzulenken, Fehlinformationen zu geben, zu verschleiern oder Schuld abzulenken: Die schwächste und daher unwürdigste Form der Führung („Schuldzuweiser“) windet und schleimt sich so an die Macht. Leider sind schwache und erbärmliche Betrüger in demokratischen/kapitalistischen Systemen normalerweise sehr verbreitet. Wenn man in einem Meer von Schuldzuweisungen steckt, stellt sich der wahre Anführer der Herausforderung: Er/Sie nimmt die Schuld auf sich und *führt dann zu Lösungen.* Wir haben keine. Wir wählen schleimige, betrügerische Schuldzuweiser, und zu viele Menschen, die in ihrem „Brot und Spiele“-Leben feststecken, lieben die Show...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@waynesullivant The unruly mob of protesters broke in illegally, and destroyed private property.
"That evening, a group of 30 to 130 men, some dressed in the Mohawk warrior disguises, boarded the three vessels and, over the course of three hours, dumped all 342 chests of tea into the water.[67] The precise location of the Griffin's Wharf site of the Tea Party has been subject to prolonged uncertainty; a comprehensive study[68] places it near the foot of Hutchinson Street (today's Pearl Street).[better source needed] The property damage amounted to the destruction of 92,000 pounds or 340 chests of tea, reported by the British East India Company worth £9,659 worth, or $1,700,000 dollars in today’s money. [69] The owner of the two of the three ships was William Rotch, a Nantucket-born colonist and merchant.[70]
Another tea ship intended for Boston, the William, had run aground at Cape Cod in December 1773, and its tea was taxed and sold to private parties. In March 1774, the Sons of Liberty received information that this tea was being held in a warehouse in Boston, entered the warehouse and destroyed all they could find. Some of it had already been sold to Davison, Newman and Co. and was being held in their shop. On March 7, Sons of Liberty once again dressed as Mohawks, broke into the shop, and dumped the last remaining tea into the harbor.[71][72]"
[Wiki]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, I know...huh, huh...
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had the global influence of the Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Brits thought they were sooooo clever and make a "pig's breakfast" out of Europe, as they always did as a matter of policy.
"Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
James Hacker : That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister [rolls eyes and laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister.
No "satire" there at all.
Not "funny comedy" at all if one ends up as a "tool" of London's little divide and rule schemes.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists...
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States),.
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Ask the affected millions what they wanted for themselves? Nah. That was below the lords...
So in 1939 Stalin and Hitler came along and made "a pig's breakfast" of the London lord's little scheme for their "divided continent" (see Secret protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact).
The lords wanted to play divide and rule with the continent's inhabitants indefinitely, for own gain, and in the end the UK became a tool of Washington DC, and they lost their Empire. Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945 and a subsequent few years.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was reduced to the status of "a scrap of paper". Awww. Sad. No nukes for the "special relationship" best fwiends 😅😆😁
Subsequently Washington DC used British weakness and made a pig's breakfast out of British markets (economic warfare), and re-divided the world into "east and west".
Didn't anybody notice?
The world went from a divided continent, to suit the expansion/protection of the British Empire/London, to a divided world, to suit the expansionprotection of The American Century/Washington DC.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@damedusa5107 HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books.
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source)
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies.
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
EPISODE I:
"... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
EPISODES II thru IV:
Lotsa other stuff happening.
EPISODE V:
If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003
Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice.
Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power.
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nhjhbmkuy7173 I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc...
Sorry to burst your bubble.
I've got some bad news for all you "never gonna fight"-fanboys.
YOU. WILL. GO.
Capturing the hearts and minds of the (mainly) young, rebellious, and easily-influenced, is a long-term goal of what W.T. Stead set out to do as the "Americanization of the World" (book) on all tiers: ideology, food, industrial products, movies, language, etc. Of course, what he didn't mention back then almost a hundred years ago when this global strategy started, was that this was in effect an old Roman-era strategy of power: to morph the conquered, to become "like Rome." Fill the bellies of the global masses ("Bread") and distract them with entertainment ("Circuses"), and then turn them into the tools of the empire.
Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy.
It gave whites ("Europeans") the basis of the power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other.
The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
Divide-and-rule was the advantage they thought they held 100 and 200 years ago, and they think it still is today.
There can be only 1 "winner". The others are the systemic "cannon fodder" for the gain of the few "buck passers".
Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything, nobody ever decided anything, everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, profiteers, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and finger-pointers...
Teach your children well...
Of course these hundreds of comments by Americans and Canadians mirror the comments made by hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favourite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the leadup to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power (in stages after 1890), in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) and their "buck-catchers", nodded off by the "buck passers" which hold the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed right through to today.
Whatever...
Guess who "wins"?
The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand).
The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction (MIRVs carrying nukes) as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
1
-
1:00 minute
The Morocco Crisis of 1905.
It all started in 1880, with the Treaty of Madrid, when honorable states guaranteed the independence of a 1,000-year old sovereign nation.
Apparently, these signatures under "a scrap of paper" meant nothing when it came to the allure of territory and empires, as in the case of Italy ("appeased" with a free hand in Libya), and GB ("appeased" with a free hand in Egypt).
The so-called sovereignty of a little nation Morocco? Pfffft...who cares?
The independence of "poor little countries"? Nah. Just a "scrap of paper".
Concerning the "throwing away" of "little nations to the crocodile":
The independence of a thousand year old state was going to be thrown to wolves, intent on "carving it up" like Sunday roast.
These distinguished men in suites, who went to the best schools and always wore suites, had the choice between "dishonor or crisis".
They chose dishonor, and got a crisis.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is apparently a scheme in place to keep people from certain ZIP codes from voting, because they don't vote for conservatives, neither from the GOP nor the DNC...
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
— John Ehrlichman, to Dan Baum[45][46][47] for Harper's Magazine[48] in 1994, about President Richard Nixon's war on drugs, declared in 1971.[49]"
[from wiki, War on Drugs]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS/GLOBALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS/MILITARISTS. Their branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
1
-
MO for more than 100 years...
IDF Intelligence Service report from June 1948 lists 11 factors which precipitated the exodus, listing them in order of importance as:
a. Direct hostile Jewish operations against Arab settlements. (The Haganah was the army of the Yeshuv, or Jewish community in Palestine, and was the precursor of the Israeli Defense Force, or IDF.)
b. The effect of our hostile operations on nearby Arab settlements (especially the fall of large neighboring centers).
c. Operations of the Jewish dissidents (terrorist organisations like Irgun and the Stern Gang, also known as the Irgun Tzvai Leumi, Lehi, etc.).
d. Jewish whispering operations (psy-ops) aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.
e. Expulsion orders (by Haganah/IDF).
The Israeli Intelligence Service gives an explanation re. the main factors, concluding that “without doubt, hostile (edit: own) operations were the main cause of the movement of the population”.
According to the own analyses, it was a forced expulsion, or ethnic cleansing.
1
-
1
-
Capitalism is divide-and-rule.
The USA/collective West does what it has done best for 500 years: write itself into the role of the "right", whilst doing to others what they would never consider acceptable if done onto...
Literally the opposite of what they claim as "superior values."
___________________
Because..."avoid" is all this giant machine ever does [see footnote].
AVOID THE EQUILLIBRIUM
That is the sole aim of the "affairs of the city" which is per definition the system of politics.
Divide and conquer works because not everyone involved knows that they are taking on a role in a power game. That's how the strategy works. Very few people really need to understand it. In English, the principle is called "Useful Innocent/Useful Idiot." From a position of power, you can animate people (usually through money, or ideology) who play a role, but they know not what they do.
The peoples in your "neck o' the woods," have been ruled by division since the beginning.
Because it's easier to divide people based on personal differences than to unite them based on their similarities. Strategically ambivalent elites use this to their own advantage. Now the intention is simply to avoid the unity in your society, in order to "rule" over the dissenters, which is the classic "divide and conquer" principle. This strategy is kept under wraps, due to a systemic desire to be "good", and on the "right side of history", and therefore overemphasizing the actions of philanthropists, political doves, peace activists, religious leaders, etc.
At the same time the activities of political hawks sowing divisions are downplayed, relativized, apologized for, mostly by politicians and strategists as the "story tellers" of history. But also by commoners, who simply parrot the stories without thinking them through, and who are NOT privy to the overall strategy (divide-and-rule in all its intricacies and nuances).
The main interest of these people for which we have been fighting wars for centuries has been the relationships between organized systems of finance and power, and systems of resources and manpower. Because united they are the only power that could threaten this group. They must make sure that the unity of others does not happen. ... For these elites ... the greatest fear is an overall creation of a unity of technology, capital and natural resources, and labor, as the only combination that has frightened the elites for centuries. So how does this play out? Well, they have already put their cards on the tilted table. They draw their invisible lines onto society.
Today all our so-called "leaders" are too weak to create systemic unity, to avoid their "friends" simply drawing lines all over the place, which they cower down to and must obey.
Like a ratchet, one click at a time, the "marching empire." Endless wars, constant disagreements, using imperialism to stay on top. Using "levers" of lies and distrust, via power players. Creating favorites: favoring the proxies who bow down and sacrifice themselves for the mastah. Pointing fingers, everywhere else, using the POWER of the mainstream media.
Divide-and-rule/conquer.
The oldest trick in the book...
Who has the POWER? Who has always had the GEOPOSITIONAL advantage of power to rule? The GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all other "buck catchers" (tools and other instruments of POWER in the Roman era style), but could not be reached themselves at any point in a historical timeline due to a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic- or political advantage?
“Divide-and-rule/conquer” as a standard strategy of power and thus the cause of nearly all conflicts in the world connects the dots on the timeline of history. Being far from the events resulting from their own meddling and political activities and being able to reach all other regions, but could not be reached themselves.
All they want is peace, they say. Who gathers the pieces of the great wealth and systemic gains when everyone else has failed to unite?
Different terms. Different eras. Same games...
The opposition that wants unity and equillibrium in a region is the "bad guy."
We, who seek true peace and harmony, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized.
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D chess." Everything you know is a variation of reality. They are playing 5D chess with the minds of 2D checkers players, within the compartmentalized brains of people who think they are smart.
》》》》》
Footnote:
Giant spinning/framing machine = MIMAC = cyclic dynamical systems of power
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened. The word "rule" also constitutes a "trigger", or natural aversion, which would mean psychologically oposing a theory, simply based on the words used.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please, lol.
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage (see below comments thread for a few). These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favoratism.
"Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Should anybody dare to oppose the official "good side/bad side"-narrative of the rich sitting on their thrones of power, the disinformation playbook of the empire will strike back, and their MO will be predictable:
The Fake: Conduct counterfeit narrative and try to pass it off as legitimate research.
The Blitz: Harass those who speak out against the empire and its friends.
The Diversion: Manufacture uncertainty where little or none exists.
The Screen: Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies.
The Fix: Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy.
This closely mirrors the empire's habit of using human beings as tools, as "barriers", "vassals", as "taxpayers" or other forms of voluntary/involuntary support. The empire has ways to employ human beings in direct or indirect manners, including secondary and tertiary functions of support which the supporters are not even aware of (say "taxpayers" or "propagandists"). Never mind how intelligent a state is, there will always be those who justify everything they do, or invent new words if the old ones have received an unfavourable connotation by past events. In other words, if a term "sounds bad", simply invent a new term to distance ones fluffy feelings from reality, and carry on doing as always: Divide-and-rule the planet.
For example, if the term "concentration camp" sounds bad, simply invent a new term (re-education center, detention center, etc) and the "empire" can steam ahead, same old strategies of power, different words...
All the above are all typical divide-and-rule strategies, which are employed on all tiers of systems intent on aggressive gain, and which are therefore typical of all systems of gain, including capitalist and democratic systems. The technique is common in the systems of "capitalism/corporatism" and "democracy/globalism" and can be examined in meta studies. It's almost guaranteed that as soon as one reaches the "sensitive zones" of the empire and systems of gain, the MSM flak will get real thick, and the apologist knee-jerk reactionary forces will get really triggered...
All systems of gain are systemically infested by sociopaths and psychopaths of all kinds, who put interests and profit first, above all else.
Key words for further research:
1) 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
2) Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
3) The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
4) Dr Namie's research revealing the "Four Bully Types"😮
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jessiealvey2945
Venezuela didn't fail because of socialism, but because of populism.
I suggest googling "what is the difference between populism and socialism".
In a nutshell, populism is the "distribution of goodies" to supporters of a specific party (usually with a typical "supreme leader" who can do no wrong)...
Socialism is the "control over the means of production by the state" (note, socialism does not exclude neither private property, nor capitalism).
Populism is what Trump is doing, and PragerU, Shapiro, FOX, and other channels are screaming "socialism" at every country which fails, as a distraction of what the Trump Admin is doing to the US (populism = handouts and freebies to supporters).
Another country which failed due to populism? Greece, during the financial crisis of 2009/10, when the EU ran out of cheap credit to give to Greek populist leaders.
Venezuela failed yuuuugely when the price of oil dropped steeply. Now the price of oil is rising, but US sanctions means they cannot sell it, in order to stabilize the economy.
Trump is doing the same as Chavez initially did, which is taking a state income (USA = tariffs vs. Venezuela =oil revenues), and redistributing it to supporters.
Not everything "labeled" Socialism, also contains socialism :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dianem6951 Umm...I'm a centrist.
So I should "get out more"?
I've been to 65 countries, most for longer than a few months, on 6 continents of which I've lived and worked on three, and in 4 different countries...including the USA.
What should I "get out more to"?
Have you ever been out of your village, or how do you inform yourself?
Let's take your assumption that privatization of college make it cheaper and better.
Nope.
Wrong.
Just like drug prices in the USA are 3 times more expensive than Canada and every other country in the world due to the fact that it is in a for profit corporate hands, so will education...if privatized.
You're falling for a very simple trick, which is false equivalency.
Because cars become better if development and production is in private hands, it doesn't mean than education is the same.
Cost intensive fields like education and health care get more expensive if there is an incentive to make a profit.
[See US drug prices as an example]
Without strict regulation, it will become the next field for scammers, opportunists, and other snake oil salesmen...
1
-
@Kip Winner Even better.
Instead of listing sources, I'll give you a tip.
Take a few key words from my comment, and use Google.
Type "why is US health care 3 times more expensive than Canada", or "Why does a medication which costs a few dollars to make, cost the patient 120,000 dollars", etc.
Me, "old man", doesn't have to worry about getting wiped out by a medical emergency.
It always costs me 12% of what I earn.
It's 12% of my taxable income if I earn well, and it's 12% if I don't earn well.
It's 12% if I'm 20, and it's 12% if I'm 50.
You on the other hand, can't tell me how much you'll be paying in 15 or 20 years....that's up to an industry out for profit.
So, Madame.
How much will your health insurance cost you in 25 years?
You haven't thought about that?
Sleep tight :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kip Winner So I'll give you an example of how to utterly defeat a subjective opinion (rather than "conclusion/hypothesis" based on facts).
You write "wiki/rational wiki can be altered by anybody", presumably as statement that it isn't a reliable source.
Well...wrong.
Wiki is a PEER CONTROLLED open source platform.
That means anybody can theoretically join, and change things (to suite his or her subjective opinions), but that will then be just as quickly removed, if it cannot be followed up by facts or evidence.
[Note here, every wiki page has numerous reviewed sources and links at the bottom of each page]
In other words, write a bunch of uninformed bs, and it'll be taken down faster than you can cry "muh FREE SPEECH....WAHHH?!?"...
So, the counterfactual argument:
Why don't you go to the wiki site on the Holocaust, and read all about how it was a scam to promote Israel (right wing conspiracy theory), because according to YOUR theory, any neonazi can go to wiki, and change it to suit his personal view of "history", without a shred of evidence....
Well LMFAO.
It just doesn't happen.
If you want to post on wiki, you make damn sure that you have facts and evidence to follow up what you write.
So there...debunked :-)
1
-
1
-
@dianem6951 As for your 1st comment, you're spot on.
Your suspicion derives from the simple fact the "power corrupts, and ultimate power corrupts ultimately".
Once you've embraced the truth that any position of power in a hierarchy (political, military, financial, industrial, boards, journalism, think tanks/information, family, etc.) will ultimately corrupt if left intransparent, unchallenged, and unchecked, then you've become woke to the world we live in...
With PragerU, you are actually watching a spin doctor aka "think tank", twisting words and concepts to fit a preconceived conviction.
That is not how scientists work.
True scientists, gather as many facts as possible, to then conclude a most likely theory/hypothesis....and are willing to change this theory if new facts come to light...
As for your second comment.
You might be using a fallacious argument called "anecdotal evidence", in other words, deriving one's view of the world from what one witnesses (own surroundings or TV) without having evidence that this is actually the norm.
Yes, there are certainly a lot of dimwits, responsible for their own misery, but there are also probably just as many people, who just like you, do everything right but fall into misery due to forces beyond their control.
We, the people, should make sure that those who lead us inplace the barriers so that as few as possible "descent average folks" become the victims of avoidable circumstances.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TomFranklinX As for your second a third paragraph...uhm, well yes. Whoever said this wasn't so?
What is missing here, is the analysis why "venture capitalism" should be considered the nonplus ultra standard of a nation's success.
Note here that 90% of venture capitalist fail (50% in the first year).
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/288769
So it could also be used as a statement regarding "burning money" and innovation which could better be used elsewhere, in well-thought out innovation and research.
The examples you mention for "success" are also subjective.
Not always does the best product win.
Often it is merely the venture capitalist which gathers the biggest amount of cash, able to market and produce his product better, at the expense of a truly better product (see here, the "battle" between Beta and VHS, which the worst product won).
The battle aka "dominant design" is not always "won" by the best product, at the expense of the consumer...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_design
Money, is not always the best way towards innovation.
It can also stifle innovation, if left unchecked, and the forces of corruption and greed take over.
Which, leads to my next point....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TomFranklinX OK, I can agree with a lot of what you write.
There is little point in trying to prove the best way of reaching a certain goal, if the way is subjective.
We totally agree that the world is going to be faced with a massive problem in around 30 to 40 years. One of mass-unemployment and mass-underemployment of unskilled labor due to AI, robotics, and further steps in productivity.
Let's leave it at that.
As far as Wiki is concerned, they follow strict guidelines, which is more than I can say for PragerU videos, which is basically paid advertising.
https://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/wiki1.htm
All contributors are reminded of the Neutral Point of View policy....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
It is simply not possibly to write a paid contribution, with the hope of getting away with it, if that paid contribution does not follow the guidelines.
In case you have a specific grievance (say, a specific page or paragraph in wiki), maybe you can state this so we can explore this further.
In case you cannot state a specific grievance, I'm not exactly sure where to "file your complaint" :-)
Rgds
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dianem6951 No, I have probably not been to your village, but a did live and work in the USA for a bit more than a year. I could have stayed, got a job offer (yacht maintenance and repair) but declined after a loooooong reflection.
Nope.
Europe for me was simply the better offer and standard of living.
Nothing "mediocre" for me here.
I've worked less, enjoyed better health care, more benefits, and achieved more working in Europe (Netherlands/Germany/Spain) than I could ever have achieved in the USA.
I could afford early retirement, with moderate assets (at the time around 500 000 dollars) without losing benefits such as a pension scheme and decent health care (not possible in the USA, without sacrificing something, or belonging to the lucky few who've amassed millions).
As the previous commenter stated, Europe is great if you're as "mediocre" as me :-)
Yup, a happy to be "mediocre", because I and most of my fellow citizens have more free time, better health care, and lots of....cough, cough..."free stuff" (lol...just pulling your leg).
Yes, proud to be "mediocre", because the slightly higher taxes I pay here, actually guarantees the next guy the same good lifestyle as I have, and if he/she doesn't quite make it as 10-15% of Europeans actually don't, they at least STILL have decent health care, and lots of free stuff and free education for their kids. Yup. I seriously mean it. I don't give a sh*t if there are a few freeloaders and I don't have sleepless nights about people standing in lines for "freebies and handouts". That seems to be the American nightmare...people cutting off their noses to spite their faces comes to mind.
The pathetic urge to deny something to somebody else, means potentially denying it to yourself....
I live in a system with a safety net, which guarantees that I won't lose everything I've worked for due to unforeseen circumstances (say, an illness), and that comes with a price tag.
1
-
@Kip Winner "Yes, Apps thank to Steve Jobs. Idiot."
Nobody "owes" Steve Jobs anything.
When I fire up my smart phone and use apps, I think about Steve Jobs as much as you think about Carl Benz when you fire up your truck.
Now, I'm just guessing, but you pay homage to Karl Benz every day, and send a prayer to him hoping that he made it to heaven....lol
Honestly, dude.
Get a life.
If it were up to arsehole-in-chief Trump, Jobs wouldn't even have made it to the USA
Steve Jobs - Wikipedia
Steven Paul Jobs was born on February 24, 1955, to Abdulfattah Jandali and Joanne Schieble, and was adopted by Paul and Clara Jobs (nee Hagopian). His biological father, Abdulfattah "John" (al-)Jandali (Arabic: عبد الفتاح الجندلي) (b. 1931), grew up in Homs, Syria, and was born into an Arab Muslim household.
FROM WIKI SORREEEE :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TomFranklinX Again, as for your question as to why European investors didn't jump at the "opportunity" of ride sharing.
It is simple.
Public transport.
To explore this, let's look at 3 metropolitan areas.
London
The Ruhr
Los Angeles
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area
If you lived in Long Beach, how would you get to Venice?
By bus? I did and....lmao....it wasn't fun...
If you did the same in....
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhr_Area
...and ask the same question: how do you get from Duesseldorf to Oberhausen, the answer is simple...hop on a train, or "S-Bahn", and in a jiffy you're there.
Same for London....
[Note, not merely "anecdotal evidence", but true for all of Europe]
All of these regions are compatible, but due to the history of transport, only London and Ruhr have excellent and fast public transport. Europe evolved under the impact of trains, not cars.
So why should European investors fork out millions in start-ups when public transport (especially short and medium ranged) was fast?
Note also, that Uber was not "created" in New York City, with relatively good public transport.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TomFranklinX My question was specifically those available before 2010 (Motar App), before mass 3-g coverage for smart phones?
Hint, hint...Mobile coverage....
http://jammers.store/germany-faq-19.html
....compared to railway density...
https://www.google.com/search?q=german+railways+map&oq=german+railways+map&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3.7543j0j8&client=tablet-android-asus-rev&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=Qpz77s3q0kCn2M:
...which you can overlay with "POPULATION DENSITY"....
And discover that it's all the same.
How many more hints do you need?
Obviously, the first question a VC would have had about the business plan of a ride-sharing app *before 2010" would have been about POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS.
To which the rhetoric would then have been "why should somebody wait 20 minutes for a car, to drive him through narrow streets, if he can hop on a train and be there in 15 minutes? Hmmmm?
[Note, not valid after say 2010, when both smart phones, coverage and the potential nr. of customers greatly increased. Uber did not expand to Europe until 2011, so that point is moot]
Where was the first Uber ride?
What was the difference between the METROPOLITAN San Francisco Bay Area, and the Ruhr?
Why would something which was a good idea in San Francisco (before 2010) be a bad idea in the Ruhr (before 2010)?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
POWER. DOESN'T. CARE.
Maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are trapped in a "divide and rule world", and it has been all about PROFITS and CONTROL over the people.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Theories based on good vs bad leave a lot of room for bias and interpretation depending on the vantage point of the storytellers of history. These stories are therefore overwhelmingly subjective, and therefore appeal to the emotions of an audience.
On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: The theory is a systemic analysis which is overwhelmingly neutral and objective and is therefore a dull topic to most people on the planet. At its core level, the theory states that throughout history there were two opposing forces in action when it comes to the concept of gain. All other human interaction when it comes to the topic of gain are subject to this. These opposing forces are not the commonly held truism as being the forces of good vs. bad/evil, but rather those forces which wish to unite to create their own systemic concord, using a variety of techniques, and those forces which gain from division, using a variety of techniques of power. What evolves out of that as causal chain of events is then the friction, which is created as these opposing forces collide, which then fosters the emergence of narratives of good and evil, by providing the catalyst (human nature). Note: words have definitions and meanings and context matters, not only when it is beneficial from their own standpoint.
Every single struggle for power ever, every single crisis about a man-made system ever, and every single war ever, has arisen out of these two opposing forces of concord/discord (causality). Anybody may of course try to find exceptions to this rule, and will find none, unless one engages in typical human behavioral patterns. Name the struggle, and one can point out whether it arose out of the attempt to create concord, or discord. Every single good vs. bad narrative ever has arisen from this very simple axiom.
On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: At its most fundamental core, the theory states that where there are intentions by systems to create unity, the opposing forces to such unity, or systemic actors, would then try to divide observed forces of unity, using key strategies, and vice-versa: where intentions of trying to create division are observed by actors trying to create unity in systems, key strategies are employed to overcome these divisions, to achieve unity in a system. These take place at the same time, making a timeline difficult to assess, contributing to the favoring of pleasing narratives for own causes, as a way of convincing large numbers of people.
The tier of interaction is irrelevant, and where there is an intention of achieving systemic gain, the strategies will closely resemble each other: from the micro- to the most macro level of all: International Relations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
IDF Intelligence Service report from June 1948 lists 11 factors which precipitated the exodus, listing them in order of importance as:
a. Direct hostile Jewish operations against Arab settlements. (The Haganah was the army of the Yeshuv, or Jewish community in Palestine, and was the precursor of the Israeli Defense Force, or IDF.)
b. The effect of our hostile operations on nearby Arab settlements (especially the fall of large neighboring centers).
c. Operations of the Jewish dissidents (terrorist organisations like Irgun and the Stern Gang, also known as the Irgun Tzvai Leumi, Lehi, etc.).
d. Jewish whispering operations (psy-ops) aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.
e. Expulsion orders (by Haganah/IDF).
The Israeli Intelligence Service gives an explanation re. the main factors, concluding that “without doubt, hostile (edit: own) operations were the main cause of the movement of the population”.
According to the own analyses, it was a forced expulsion, or ethnic cleansing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The intention of deceit is to convince those who would gain more from unity and uniting with neighbors, is that unity is "wrong," and disunity/discord is "right."
The "system" is not "broken."
The "system" functions exactly as intended, and exactly as desired by the uber-1%ters in positions of wealth and power.
The "system" intentionally sets up people against people, neighbors against neighbors, class against class, faction against faction, men against women, rich against poor...
The "system" is intentional, perpetual, and is divide-and-rule.
It does exactly what it has intended to do for centuries: set up the default ingroups against the default outgroups, then then the elites/establishment rule over the division.
As George Carlin quipped: While everybody fights, they run off with all the money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ambidextrousfapper LOL
OK, have it your way.
" In 2012, a man in Oregon was sentenced to 30 days in jail for collecting rainwater on his property (in a pond). In the state of Oregon, the government owns the rain, and you have to have a special permit to collect and hold it. Other states have laws against rain barrels..."
Isn't that ridiculous?
So what so ridiculous about doing another human being a favor, not being an a-hole, be nice, and call them whatever the eff they want?
Correct, nothing wrong with it.
If somebody wants me to call him "green alien", or "doctor Smith", or "sir", I'll simply do it.
What's the problem. Why be a snowflake about it.
Why don't you Google "dumb laws", and notice that there will be literally hundreds you won't agree with, yet you don't make a fuss about it do you?
Why not?
[Note, my question. Please answer it now]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Im Februar 1948 sagte der Policy Planning Staff von George F. Kennan: „Wir besitzen etwa 50 % des Weltvermögens, aber nur 6,3 % der Bevölkerung ... Unsere eigentliche Aufgabe in der kommenden Zeit besteht darin, ein Muster zu entwickeln, von Beziehungen, die es uns ermöglichen, diese Position der Ungleichheit aufrechtzuerhalten."
Und das tun diese Herren.
Amerikas Verbündete und Feinde in Europa werden immer noch gegen einander aufgebracht und dann verbrannt, um sicherzustellen, dass diese Ungleichheit bestehen bleibt.
So wird „Teile und herrsche“ umgesetzt.
Sie bringen europäische und eurasische Nationen gegeneinander auf. Das „Spielbuch“ Großbritanniens und der USA seit mehr als 100 Jahren. Lesen Sie Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) und Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
1
-
@KatyushaLauncher The British didn't have the power of clairvoyance, re. Nazi Germany's intentions. Mistrust of the the "word" of Berlin was justified, seeing that Hitler had agreed to the Munich Accord, only to break it (his own signature and "word") just 6 months later.
What the British did have have firm assurances, and orders to scuttle or sabotage own ships, in case of a danger of a takeover.
From critical(dot)org(uk):
"[During the negotiations between Somerville and Gensoul]...Gensoul produced orders from Darlan dated to June 24th stating that the French fleet was to be moved to the United States or sabotaged in case of an attempt to capture them by Germany."
Had Somerville been granted full negotiating powers, and an objective (say "ensure that the French Fleet does not fall into Axis hands"), rather than an ultimatum and the knee-jerk panicky "settle matters quickly"-order an agreement ensuring that the French Fleet was out of the reach of either Berlin or Rome, could have been reached.
Mers el Kebir is what happens when a nation doesn't trust its own military, but prefers to meddle politically, with specific orders, from faraway "chateauxs", rather than trusting the skill and integrity own competent military leaders, who then lead from the front.
1
-
@KatyushaLauncher Yes, that is correct.
French military = ensures the safety and protection of the French Empire, against enemies, whoever they were.
In the context of Mers, it was Germany, or a supposed "handover to the Nazis"-rhetoric.
No, the French did not "owe" GB, and the British Empire anything.
British military = ensures the safety and protection of the British Empire, against enemies, whoever they were.
Same logic counts for all.
After GB refused further aid to protect France (for example, sending more fighter planes to counter the LWs air superiority, which Dowding refused), no side owed anything to the other side anymore.
I can produce a long list of "British betrays to France" in the leadup to the French decision to accept an armistice, so both "sides" can play the "being betrayed"-game.
It goes both ways.
I'm neutral btw.
I have zero sympathy for what I term "dumb Europeans" who with cases like these (like Mers), against a backdrop of a changing world ("geopolitical" big picture) squandered away their inheritance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@augustuscaesar8287 How would you know who is misusing the system, and who is just down on their luck?
Obviously, a system once implemented (social welfare system), cannot judge itself, but needs independent bodies to investigate/trial suspected cases.
Note here that many of these YT videos and "reality shows" are "paid actors" (seriously, they are), who are paid to "act" a "role" of "the typical welfare recipients" because it is known to be popular, and attract viewers.
The intention is to show "typical" welfare recipients as whole groups, in order to marginalize them (drug addicts, poc, homeless, immigrants, refugees) and spread hatred and dissent towards the entire group, foster stereotypes, etc. rather than doing case-by-case investigations.
1
-
@augustuscaesar8287 Then first of all I wish you good luck.
Yes, I'm sure there's a lot of laziness going around. In some cases, easy access to money breeds laziness. But a lot of what you explain could also be undiagnosed psychological problems. Depressions could easily "look like" a person is "lazy".
There is probably no universal remedy for poverty, but if I can make one suggestion of something I consider a big problem, it is the fact the types of foods you've described, are exactly the types of food which are cheap, fill the belly, and quick/easy to prepare.
In a nutshell, they get bought by the poor, because they are mostly cheaper than healthy natural foodstuff. They will also typically be easy to find everywhere.
Simply marking the packaging as IMO pointless. It's like telling an alcoholic that booze is unhealthy, or a drug addict that "drugs kill"...like as they don't know already.
I know you probably don't like regulations, but IMO the only way to counter this trend is to artificially inflate the price of packaged processed food (say, by a much higher VAT), and in return not tax healthier fresh foods, or things like rice, fruit, etc.
IMO, people who cause high costs to a system, should also contribute more towards it. If you spend your young life eating unhealthy, then the system gains from that (pay more VAT), and if the person gets older and costs Medicare/Medicaid higher expenses, then that's already figured in (Generational Contract style).
A few folks with "good genes" lose out, but I guess one simply can't get too specific.
Just a thought.
Again, good luck with your political career, and please keep an open ear to the worries of your constituents.
Rgds
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
1
-
Here are the often-voiced "Top 4" of "Alternative History to Avoid WW1/WW2" from a British/Empire perspective:
1) we shoud have stopped Bismarck from uniting Germany, but "weany liberals" were afraid.
2) we should have steamrolled own armies to Berlin in 1918/19 and occupied Germany, but the own "weany liberals" chickened out and "stabbed our brave military (which were the inventors of Blitzkrieg btw) in the back"
3) we shoud have carved up Germany into single states again after World War 1 because they deserved it
4) we should have enforced Versailles by invading Germany while it was weak (after Hitler came to power and openly denounced Versailles, created the Luftwaffe, "in 1936", or the "unnecessary war" according to Churchill, or whatever)
What all these alternative histories have in common is the admiration of violence, thinly veiled by making suitable "appeals to emotions" to justify the own violent solutions. Each and every one of these alternatives would have been accompanied by more war, more death and tortured souls, more debt for entire nations, and the destruction of even more young lives, and even earlier "Pyrrhic Victory"...and that on the own side.
Of course, if this is then correctly pointed out, it will be suitably excused by the "it would have saved lives"-hindsight.
Strange how the side which proposes the most violent and gory "alternatives", and those whose "alternative histories" would gladly send their own historical neighbors and family members into alternative historical trenches, to face death in the worst case, and ending up shell-shocked in a less violent ending, or wasting years of their lives in muddy trenches in the best case scenario...also reserve the right to call themselves "patriots" and "the bestest Empire fans ever".
Very telling indeed...
Sad reality for the "fanboys"?
None of these four alternative histories, or any other, would have ever happened.
All of these seemingly viable alternatives are connected by a line drawn across history, based on London policies intended to create unbiased standpoints for the London lords and their habit of "playing balancing games" with the continental powers.
In a nutshell, it wasn't going to happen, never mind how plausible the alternative history sounds at first.
Whatever any alternative history fan and their favorite "historians" or politicians dream up, it wasn't going to implemented because London policies were not going to allow for it.
Note that if one suggests an alternative history, it should at least be politically viable at the time (reality of the times).
London aimed to "balance powers" on the continent, in an effort to expand and protect their Empire, and achieved exactly the opposite.
The London lords were the only European leaders steered by unwritten policies which had the intention to avoid bias, and these policies were timeless: it didn't matter which unelected "gatekeeper lords" ruled in the House of Lords/Foreign Office at any point in time.
- No permanent friends/enemies, but rather "friend" or "enemy" determined by short-term interests
- No binding treaties/alliances with any power in times of peace
- Balance out the continental powers by strengthening the weaker side in any issue (incl. war)
- Make temporary friends and align them against the strongest power/state/alliance (also in peace)
"Right" or "wrong"? The London didn't care, or they made excuses as cover up stories.
Other countries' security issues? It didn't bother London.
London had the geographical advantage in Europe for the time being, and the lords intended to use it to the fullest potential.
For London, it was all about "playing balancing games" without bothering to ask anybody, nor decide anything in a "Concert of Europe" as in the past.
1
-
In more detail concerning the "why" the alternatives listed above (or similar) had no prospect of passing the vetoes of the few lords and their "corridors of power"-logic:
1) Bismarck's unification (from the mid-19th Century) process suited the London just fine at the time, and it had nothing to do with any "liberal weakness". After France was "crashed and demoralized" by Napoleon I (Waterloo, creation of Belgium, etc.) during the Napoleonic Wars, France started rising again from this weakened state, and had to be balanced out by a suitable power. Same with Russia, which had been "taught a lesson in the Crimean War", but was an easily recognized "rising power" with vast resources, and great potential. Unfortunately with "Great Game"-ambitions directed at GB/Empire, which a powerfull Royal Navy could do little to influence in outcome (concept of "land power" vs. "sea power"). Regarding land warfare, 1812 had shown how difficult, self-destructive, and costly it was. Even to a "military genius" like Napoleon I. A preventive war against Russia, to curb Russian power or "nip it in the bud", simply wasn't possible. A united Germany, could suitably balance these two out, potentially offering London a chance to "hop onto" a "friendly Berlin" for own interests if a large continental army was needed by London for own interests. Seeing how any preventive war on Russia would have ended the same way for London/Empire, as it did for Napoleon and his "alliance of the willing", Germany was simply left to unite unopposed. Such decisions based on "balance of power"-logic were taken in "old boys" clubs.
So much for that alternative history.
It was just never going to happen, and from the British perspective the opposition was in London and between London lords, and in London only.
2) This was definately not going to happen in any "alternative reality": the reality at the time was that both GB and the "associates" in the USA were isolationist. A long-term occupation of any European country, would never have been passed by either government. So that point is moot, or "wishful thinking". The USA entered the war to tip the scales in favor of the Allies, to a great extent because they wanted the many many millions back they had lent to GB and France, and once the Central Powers accepted defeat or caved in, that objective ("securing" the repayment of debt) was achieved. For Washington DC the armistice in November 1918 was "Mission Accomplished". A long-term occupation would have been unpopular with the civilian population as well, and democracies rely on public opinion. With London and Washington DC out, that leaves...France. France would have loved to occupy Germany, but London followed a policy called "Balance of Power", meaning that London would never have supported any single hegemony on the continent. Not even "temporary best fwiends" Paris. Bottom line? London was not exactly pleased about the prospect of "a future French Napoleon" threatening their Empire, whilst engaged in an active naval arms race against another rising power (the "associated" USA) equally intent on access to desirable markets. Furthermore, GB and France were already fully occupied by colonial issues and wars, and all sides were engaged in a war with the new Communist regime in Moscow, after the Russian Revolution, further binding resources.
Chances of this happening: zero.
"1918/1919 Blitzkrieg to Berlin"-fantasy status: cancelled.
It was just never going to happen, and from the British perspective the opposition was in London and between London lords, and in London only.
3) In a similar way to the above reasoning, after WW1 France posed the danger of achieving a single hegemony. Note how WW1 destroyed Russia (revolution), Austria-Hungary (dissolved into single states), and Germany as "powers", and if Germany was carved up into weak single states again, then the fear was simply that some future "Napoleon" (say a "Napoleon IV", lol) would exploit this.
Sorry...another "London lord"-veto for the "fans".
After WW1 it was the own "best friend" France which had to be "balanced out", just so they don't get too strong...
Chances for this alternative history ever passing the approval of the London lords: zero
It was just never going to happen, and from the British perspective the opposition was in London and between London lords, and in London only.
4) When Hitler started "making Germany great again", there was no way Versailles was ever going to be enforced either, because after the communists in Moscow started growing the SU's power (started with the first 5-year plan in 1928), Germany was needed to "balance it out". London was not going to "enforce Versailles". Paris with their "Maginot mindset"-caps firmly in place would not have acted without the support of London. That makes any and every "we should done"-logic wishful thinking yet again. It was neither politically desirable (balance of power), nor would it have received support from populations which had just lost millions in a World War. A "just uniting Germans"-Hitler re-arming and unilaterally cancelling Versailles suited these "corridors of power"-London lords just fine. Those in the positions of government in London, who would have to decide "preventive war" or not, would have vetoed it.
Reality for Churchill's "most easily avoidable war, by enforcing Versailles"? Torpedoed by a few London "gatekeeper"-lords just balancing powers...
Critical question: What were the odds that Churchill already knew all of this even before he came up with his "most easily preventable war ever"-story?
It was just never going to happen, and from the British perspective the opposition was in London and between London lords, and in London only.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Do you wish to contribute a small share to force Israel into a negotiated peace process?
Do you wish to see the end of western imperialist actions as in this video?
Are you American? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from their 800 military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not perfect, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions.
It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
It "started" quite innocently, way before WW2.
With a London policy.
I'm sure the British population and the inhabitants of Empire would have been happy if their toffs hadn't made Germany the enemy as a default setting.
The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting...
[britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power]
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.
It came first before all other considerations.
It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding
1) alliances
2) treaties (or no treaties)
3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord)
4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle)
5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint)
6) when to engage in arms races
7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences
Go over your history, and see its handwriting all around...
Enjoy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are you a citizen of the world, and wish to contribute a small share to end the grip the global elites have on the narrative of history?
Are you American, or European? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from the multitude of military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any platform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Why do we know this? Because good people have been voting, and posting, and debating, and using their freedom of speech, and protesting for hundreds of years, but the grip the elites have on the plebs has NEVER changed.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unraveling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting all international big brands.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small local companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever and whenever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone," or "but, but, but...your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be perfect...
Methodology: JDI and make it a long term lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk trend, because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate interests. Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small local companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Do you wish to fight meddling globalist empires?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influential GLOBAL ELITES only REALLY start "caring" (sic.) when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 The decision to flatten Germany, thereby destroying the Empire, was taken in London.
They just totally hot their "list of rivals/enemies" all mixed up.
After WW1, Empire had three rivals:
1) American corporatism (aka The American Century, which had their greedy eyes on British markets)
2) Communism (Who intended, as a matter of policy, to overpower all "evil capitalists", and had their eyes on the impoverished masses in the failing empires, incl. The British Empire)
3) the Fascists states aka Axis Powers
Pretty much in that order.
British leaders had the bull by the balls 😂😃
You're trying to sell a total failure as some kind of victory of sorts.
You can fool a lot of gullible minds, but not me. Like I said before: if I wanted to read fairy tales, I'll read the Three Little Pigs or Goldilocks 😀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Treaty of Versailles was, according to many historians and their various analyses, the death knell of Europe.
The ability of people to blame others for the effects of own behaviour, rather than to blame themselves for their own decisions, castes long shadows.
Individuals should avoid debates following the principles of "right/wrong" since such debates go around in circles forever. Debaters cherry-picking their "facts" and "dates." Obviously, everybody has a different concept of "right/wrong." Instead, point out causal effects of own actions imposed, and which were NOT a result of a "round table" negotiation such as The Concert of Europe was. These decisions after the Napoleonic Wars, to create a balance of powers per mutual agreement after a major tragedy which affected all, worked amazingly well for 100 years, despite the limited wars which continued after 1815. The first step of those seeking peace was to acknowledge the security risks of all the major powers, but also avoiding the childish "finger pointing" at all the various hotheads who had previously escalated limited crises/engagements of regional character, thereby escalating these into a world-wide war, with millions of dead and millions more negatively affected.
*With the Treaty of Versailles, Europe went down the drain when their leaders decided to abandon the principle of Machiavellian "fairness", and impose an IMbalance of power de jure at a green table, without the deterrence to enforce it in the future. NOT a "Machiavellian" principle, but the reasoning of weak minds who know they wouldn't have to face consequences if anything went wrong (the biggest examples of the "mommy's basement hero" in history, were the "winners" of WW1 for that matter).
By not inviting all, REGARDLESS of the excuses made, they thereby created a de facto reality which was the same as pre-1914. The security concerns of a neighbour was simply ignored. The NWO was dictated onto one of the neighbours (Versailles) whilst another was simply not invited either. This an observation based on the facts.* Why was the situation of pre-1914 recreated again post-1918 at Versailles? In 1919 Machiavellian fairness was thrown out the window again when one of the powers was encroached upon by an "encirclement strategy" AGAIN.
The first encirclement took place in stages starting in the 1890s, and continued following the year 1900. After WW1 the encirclement strategy was continued again; instead of a small number of large encircling powers as before 1914, there were now (enabled by the Armistice and Versailles) a larger number of smaller encirclers after 1919, who either allied with or aligned with the "winners" (France/GB/USA). Thereby, wanted or not, these new smaller states became the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer Theory) of outsiders. European history of 1,000 years, as either France or the Holy Roman Empire tried to encircle each other (2-front war danger), trying to get the vital "upper hand" in a struggle for Western European "top dog"-status, continued...
Just like in physics, every force creates a counterforce. The intention to "keep down/keep out/encircle" a neighbour, created an effect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><
The observation today is therefore that Europeans will lose again, because after 1990 this marching onto the borders of a neighbour, and encroaching on a neighbour (also "by proxy"), ignoring constantly repeated warnings, was continued. Only this time the neighbour "encroached upon" with an encirclement strategy was Russia. The "morphed tools" now included all Central European nations, too blinded by narratives to unite in time to avoid their own "tool status" AGAIN.
This is an OBSERVATION, empowered by a million bits of data from history, and which cannot be countered, because it actually happened.
This forces the obfuscators and "whataboutism"-fanboys into all kinds of contorted distorted gish-galloping attempts at deflecting, word trickery and ingroup bonding, to "get the ingroup in line again".
The "marching route" towards Russia was:
- Eastern Europe
- Balkans
- Black Sea Region/Caucasus (southern pincer of encroachment)
- Baltic Region/Scandinavia (northern pincer of encroachment)
Those who implement their step-by-step, SYSTEMIC EXPANSION always only want peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE. A little "piece" of...
All they wish to do is "eat a PIECE of salami, slice by slice by slice" and they are all very friendly. Look, they even wag their NATO-tails.
All of this is "history rhyming, as pointed out in more than 100 essays in the below comments section.
Then they think people are too stupid to notice what they are doing.
All they wish to do is deflect from a very simple reality: they need YOU as a tool, to overpower your neighbour FOR them. In the big picture, the story is to deceive people into doing unto others what they would never consider acceptable if "done unto them" (systems).
As stated in the first paragraph, individuals can argue their own personal rights/wrongs until they are blue in the face, huff and puff about how great they are, but it is not going to protect them from the harmful causal effects of the own systemic expansive aims as implemented by the strategists in the capital cities, or by the so-called "friends" who employ them as tools, buffer zones, as happily marching "useful idiots/innocents," ideological propagandists, a "new best friend" with a nice new shiny red "bullseye" painted on the back (lightning rods), or otherwise employed as proxies, without "round table"-consent of all involved powers (aka Machiavellian concept of fairness).
Beware of bowing down to the narrative spinners and framers.
How the narrative is spun in order the create a smokescreen for the hidden aims and agendas, reveals the strategists and their ulterior motives, which are the same today as 100 and 125 years ago. History does not "start" with the REaction. It starts with the actions. Pity if one lives in countries collectively too blind to see.
1
-
1
-
I guess he meant "blowback" from bombing everybody else...
Apparently throughout US history, "some people did some things"...
"Since World War II, during a supposed golden age of peace, the United States military has killed or helped kill some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 84 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. The United States is responsible for the deaths of 5 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and over 1 million just since 2003 in Iraq.
Since 2001, the United States has been systematically destroying a region of the globe, bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, not to mention the Philippines. The United States has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces in three-quarters of them."
[davidswanson]
Or as Arhur Harris said "did they think they could bomb [>kill<] everybody and not get bombed [> killed<] back?" ... or something like that....
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Too stupid to avoid disunity.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS.
Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite?
Today we see millions of followers of Islam, praying in their mosques in West Asia, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS, and 125 years ago we saw millions of followers of Christ, praying in their churches, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS. Oh, wait...we didn't see it...
We, the people, were enamored by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", and "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin" on reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart".
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
1
-
Imperials won't enforce a peace deal on Israel, because the "forever war" which started in the ME in WW1 and after 1919, benefits those imperialist powers whose core heartlands can't be reached.
It's how "divide and rule" works.
The rulers of the world, and their local minions, mix all kind of people who "naturally" don't get along. Why? What would happen if all the little minions lower down saw eye-to-eye on issues?
Eternal war in the ME benefits the dividers in the Pentagon/Washington DC.
Geopolitics links to grand strategy, to the big picture.
There is a fracture zone between the big global players (USA/EU, Russia, China) running from the North Pole, through the Baltic States, Poland and Ukraine, via the Caucasus, Iran, and towards Israel. Another fracture zone is the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa (incl. Israel), from there through India, SE Asia (incl. Vietnam), through Taiwan, the Koreas, Japan, Taiwan, back up to the North Pole. Expect Washington DC, either in collaboration with a NATO state, or tacidly nodded off by the EU, to instigate crises and wars EVERYWHERE on these "fracture zones," because it is the only way they can hang on the the good ol' days a bit longer: their role of the hegemon of the world, and that of the American Century.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
99% of the video, and 99% of the commentary here is totally beside the point, because it leaves out a key actor: The USA.
Wiki: Robert Greene, 48 Rules of Power (edited as a selected few); " 2. Never put too much trust in "best fwiends", learn how to use rivals (as "proxies" for example London/Paris) 3. Conceal your intentions (from fwiends too) 4. Always say less than necessary ... 7. Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit (edit: "heavy lifting") 12. Use selective honesty and generosity to disarm your victim 13. When (edit: attempting own goals); appeal to people’s self-interest (imperialism), never to their mercy or gratitude 14. Pose as a friend, work as a spy (aka gathering information by posing as "a fwiend")... 20. Do not commit to anyone ... Play on people’s need to believe to create a cultlike following [ze "freedumb and democwacy"- argument, which works like a dream] ... 31. Control the options: get others to play with the cards you deal (ahem..."lease and lend" help to select "favorites") 32. Play to people’s fantasies 33. Discover each man’s thumbscrew (money/influence/desire for power and control) 34. Be royal in your own fashion: act like a king to be treated like one 35. Master the art of timing ... 38. Think as you like but behave like others (imperialism/neoimperialism for example employing "acts of ENABLING") 39. Stir up waters to catch fish (for example "send a gunboat/military, wait to get shot at, or 'a Maine explosion', to then 'act in self-defence', or 'for the poor people', or whatever...") 40. Despise the free lunch ... 42. Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter ... (take out the main opposition to own goals, in this case Berlin) 44. Disarm and infuriate with the mirror effect (hypocrisy is a strategy, not "an oversight") 45. Preach the need for change, but never reform too much at once ("conservatism" is an -ism and a bias) 46. Never appear too perfect (In other words, have a few massacres and regime change opps/invasions oneself, to "blend in" with the other kids in the imperialist club) 47. Do not go past the mark you aimed for: in victory, learn when to stop (strategy aka "one step at a time")"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join up...
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vpowerization London did not start world wars unless the European balance of power was threatened, or the so-called "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-principle, which London strictly adherred to.
Before 1939 and the invasion of Poland, the continental balance of power was not threatened, and Hitler actually kindly used German taxpayer money to balance out the rise of the Soviet Union.
There would not be a "world war" unless Hitler actually attacked Poland.
Other countries were not important, as long as the SU grew in power.
If you wish to write an alternative history, it would have to be logical.
You have two options:
1) invent a time machine and go back to the 19th century, and kill every single "baby Lord" in a position of power in London, who clinged to the logic of "balance of power" and "avoid the single hegemony".
2) go back to the 1890, and "kill baby Hitler"
Since neither of these are a viable option, there was no way to avoid the course of history, regardless of who the British PM in the late-1930s was, because it was not a dictatorship, and therefore Churchill as PM would have been forced to stick to the same collective decision.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This debate is completely pointless waste of time.
Same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
Footnote 1:
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
From Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA® was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the first.
See what happens when ones leaders try to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The entire point of Versailles was to avoid one power from controlling the Heartland (roughly the Urals to Central Europe). This area had enough resources (raw materials, incl. oil, manpower, etc.) to make it un-blockadable by a sea power.
[Google: The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History for more info]
If any one power (state, or alliance) controlled it 100%, the British Empire would be 100% indefensible.
If any one power ruled the Heartland, the Royal Navy would become pointless as a wartime tool of blockade, or a peacetime tool of political leverage (aka "having the upper hand" in a crisis).
To put it another way.
If any one state/power controlled the Heartland, that "power" could always show London the big fat middle finger.
London could have no controll over, or in any way hinder trade, production, or infrastructure (note, with the technology of the times) in this Heartland.
In contrast, the power which controlled the Heartland, could easily overpower the British Empire, even if it allied with France.
From the Caucasus, and with new technology (railways) it could easily launch a mass attack on Suez, and "the balls" of Empire, and from here dismantle it step by step. Since it was all land connections, the Royal Navy could have done little to hinder the advance of mass armies, nor hinder their re-supply.
The Heartland was autark, and unassailable with the weapons of the time, even in 1939.
Look at a map.
If Poland fell, Germany could potentially attack and overwhelm/overpower Moscow.
London's post-WW1 strategy = keep Berlin and Moscow separated by a "wall" (google Limitrophe States) = Versailles
If Poland fell = protect the Heartland "by proxy" = support Moscow
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markarmage3776
She should have voted against or abstained, and keep her personal convictions out of a political decisions.
Fact is, Chow started it, by linking a political decision she took (simulated on campus) to a choice she made for others. Note, not for herself. For others
Here is what she wrote, linking her personal belief system, to a political decision she made: “As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true,” Chow wrote. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman.
Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
The US is based on the understanding that the "pursuit of life, liberty and happiness" is everybody's right, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. As an aspiring politician, she should honor the separation of church and state, and she should therefore have left her personal beliefs and judgement of others out of it.
1
-
1
-
@markarmage3776 @Mark Armage First, off. She did not only abstain.
If she had only abstained, or even voted against the bill, then nothing would have come of it.
Secondly, you are trying to turn the argument around.
Which of her rights are being restricted, if the bill had passed?
None.
Fluffy "feelings" do not count as a "right". She already has the right to discriminate in her church, but she is now asking to make that a state or federal right.
"LGBTQ nonsense" is merely your opinion
Her "liberty" is not restricted.
In which way?
Yes, she has religious protection, granted to her by the Constitution, and she is hiding behind this (as well as fake "love") to try and take the rights of others away.
What a lovely world you wish for yourself: the right to have a "protected status" to scream "discrimination" whenever you are targeted because of religion, BUT, a wish to have the privilege to discriminate against others....hmmm...how "do onto others" Christian-like...
In case you disagree, what right does the bill (state law) grant the LGBTQ community, that she does not already enjoy (Constitutional right)?
Same as politicians of any cult, religion, or movement, she should keep own convictions to herself.
1
-
1
-
@markarmage3776 It is no more an "emotional rant" to "promote LGBTQ nonsense", than it is an "emotional rant" to promote "religious nonsense"...
All the same thing.
Personal convictions
But here is the thing.
Which side accepts the "religious nonsense" as a personal conviction that should not be infringed?
Here what you don't get.
Your celebrate your pursuit of life, liberty and hapiness through your religion as yours. If you wish to have a wedding ceremony between a man and a woman in your church. Fine. Nobody is going to try and stop you. You may already legally stop an LGBTQ couple to do that.
Is that not enough for you?
A "marriage" before "the state" has a different legal status (inheritance, taxes to be paid, etc.)
Your religion is not "the state".
Your personal convictions cannot determine what the state allows. That is up to the founding documents of the USA, which made all citizens equal, irrelevant of whether you or I see it differently subjectively.
The "state" belongs to everybody.
So yes, I suppose it will depend on representation to determine whether all human beings are really the same, or whether only some deserve the special privilege not to be discriminated against in any way.
Nobody can "refuse to bake you a cake" for a Christian after looking at a cross around their neck. Nobody can discriminate against Jews or any race anymore. Nobody can look at your personal convictions, and throw you out of a job or a house.
But, while you might not personally discriminate against the LGBTQ society, you wish to make it ...cough, cough..."not ilegal" to discriminate against them (the same way that it was once historically not ilegal to discriminate against blacks).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markarmage3776 Some people are born deaf. Some people are born without arms and legs.
Are you nice to them, despite them being different?
Some people are born with the "wrong" brain.
In around 0,5% of births, a "female brain" is born into a male body, or vice versa. Your god, according to your belief, wanted it like that. Obviously, if not, he would not allow it to happen.
https://www.papermag.com/victorias-secret-trans-model-2639631221.html
Be nice.
Don't discriminate, because they want the same rights you already have. That is the right not to be discriminated against, based on their personal convictions ...
1
-
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Thoradim They got a suitable answer from The American Century aka Washington DC after WW2.
The story of how the Brits lost their Empire...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying a power or alienating it was neither wise, nor in GB's best interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ahhh...the "family ties". Yes, unfortunately "family ties" could not patch things up in divided Europe, in a changing world.
Of course one could argue that there wasn't any "European unity" to "divide" at the time (around 1900), but that isn't the only purpose of "divide and rule". Divide and rule also seeks preventive action, to avoid unity if such a threat is spotted on the horizon...
Also, there was no "1900 alpha" with a "Truman Doctrine"-style tool to create unity (under which it had the sole "ultimate weapon") by
creating a common rival/enemy either...
Only "a Wilhelm" trying to unite European powers behind a common cause...
Unfortunately in the study of history we only have two options: Simply believe what others tell us, or do own research.
Please download and read "Germany and the Spanish-American War" from JSTOR (free pdf).
The US plans to overpower Spain and take their colonies started in 1897.
So did Berlin's contigency plans for the USA (low-key at first, later adapted as the Spanish-American War progressed).
Yet what remains today as "important history"?
The historian explains (its only 12 pages from a longer book) how uniting Europe behind a common cause ("defending own European interests by uniting and siding with Spain") was Wilhelm's real goal.
The "German planned attack on America" today being widely spread as the assumed sign of "Wilhelm's evil" and "desire to rule the world", is an ancillary detail of course. Yes, a highly emotionally charged one (google "appeal to emotion") and can therefore serve as a sort of "clickbait" in history to distract from the more tedious and boring books explaining what really happened.
The Spanish-American War was the last opportunity to unite Europe behind a common cause.
Too bad the alpha at the time was ruled by a gambler and womanizer (Edward) and otherwise engaged (Second Boer War) and even Victoria and her "600 lords" (😊) were too busy to come up with a "turn of the century (1900)"-version of the Truman Doctrine herself.
According to that history, in 1897/1898 Wilhelm did not want to act alone, but preferred to try and find common concensus "along family lines" first, but failed because European capitals were more about "me first", in a rapidly changing world.
Subsequently Europe made it easy for Washington DC to start playing their "divide and rule". Paris was the first to try and snuggle up to a disinterested Washington DC, followed by London...
And today?
The post-WW2 Truman Doctrine and the "united Europe" it helped to forge (at least in the west after WW2), no longer serves its intended purpose.
Time to "divide and rule" again...
Wilhelm "did what he could with what he had and where he was" (loosely quoting Theodor Roosevelt), "and believed he could and went halfway" (also a Roosevelt quote), but the other half would have to come from elsewhere.
1
-
From blood diamonds to blood bananas (like that recent court case against Chiquita, which got just a tiny $37 million fine for decades of funding oppression). The phrase "banana wars" was made popular by Lester Langley, who wrote a bunch of books about Latin American history and U.S. involvement, including "The United States and the Caribbean 1900–1970" and "The Banana Wars: An Inner History of American Empire 1900–1934." These books cover the U.S. empire in South and Central America over about a century.
Wiki says: "The term was popularized through this writing and depicted the United States as a police force sent to sort out these warring tropical countries, lawless societies, and corrupt politicians; basically establishing U.S. control over tropical trade. Hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Latin American civilians lost their lives in the Banana Wars."
There’s not even a hint of any compensation for million of victims, or legal action against those responsible, not to mention the countless follow-on effects of these interventions and wars for profit, often brushed off with a casual "best that could be done" attitude by millions in the West who benefit from the system (aka "innocent consumers" who think they’re not responsible as long as they can point fingers elsewhere). It’s a reminder for the people in these regions to come together and stand up against these corporate meddling attempts for outside profit (see footnote). A lot of folks in the so-called "superior collective West" just don’t know or care as long as they get their cheap goods, their inexpensive bananas, their shiny diamonds, and their "who cares, I got my cheap gas" for their own cars. The suffering and deaths of others are totally irrelevant to those who prioritize their own interests.
Blood bananas.
Blood diamonds.
Blood oil...
Everything they touch.
The consumer does not care, for as long as they have their stated "cheap tank of gas", they simply do NOT care.
In case you live in the "rest" of the world, it is up to you. Unite with your neighbours, because the dividers will come for you.
Keep an eye out for the imperialist vibe in the daily privatized propaganda we see. The M-A-I-N acronym for "Why WW1?" is still a way of thinking that carries on today. Militarism is everywhere, and the alliances we see now shape the power dynamics. Imperialism has transformed into what we now call corporate imperialism. Nationalism is back, loudly declaring "me FIRST" with pride. It's like the story of "just sending a few cops to bring peace" in our "backyards," which really means the whole world. There's this narrative that "they are all corrupt," but we're totally clean, so "they" need to be "stopped" (just a perspective). The finger-pointing and scolding are clear signs of every other imperialist pretending to create a better world while actually keeping their foot on the necks of the weak and oppressed (see footnote). By now, with all the info available, everyone should realize that "capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work together for the benefit of all" (Keynes), and no one can claim "I didn't know."
London, Washington DC, or whoever was proxy to its power, does as it has always done.
Contribute to instigating trouble somewhere else, or meddling in the internal affairs of others, then hope someone else will pick up the tab if the sh*t hits the fan, while they run off with some or other "gain" for themselves.
This is divide-and-rule, hidden behind narratives of being the good guys who "just want peace".
What they want, is a "piece" of the pie, preferably in the form of a fat profit for a corporation, then finger-point somewhere else, usually with narratives that they were "just stopping" someone else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
During the Fist Cold War (1945-1991) the off-continental powers stepped onto the "G-G Line" (Germany to Greece), and had little minions man the parapets of the wall.
During the Second Cold War (1990s-today) the off-continental powers stepped onto the "B-B Line" (Baltics to Black Sea), and are going to set up little minions to man the parapets of the wall. Ratchet principle, since 1776...
This is divide-and-rule/conquer.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why is anybody surprised? The USA is a divide-and-rule Mecca for the ultra-rich who practice it.
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hasan is correct.
Because Americans don't realize that by their efforts to fight fire with fire, they have merely created a firestorm...
Same as their dumb War on Drugs has backfired, creating more and more violence, resulting in more and more refugees, their dumb War on Terrorism has created more war and more terrorism.
That's what haplens if one ignores the root cause of problems, and try to fight the symptoms.
The root cause of the current migration problem? The War on Drugs...it self a result of a domestic drug problem
Fighting the symthoms of a US domestic drug abuse problem in Central America, rather than the USA, is merely expanding the problem.
Fighting the symptoms of terrorism in the ME, is simply going to expand it. And it already is...the ME, now Africa.
The root cause of course, is US meddling in their world, for oil and strategic gain.
Published on
Monday, September 17, 2018 commondreams
The US-Led Global War on Terrorism Has Succeeded... In Creating More Global Terrorism
"In the 17 years since the events of Sept. 11 2001, after which the United States declared a "global war on terror," there has not been a terrorist attack of similar size or magnitude on American soil.
However, according to findings in a new congressionally mandated report by the United States Institute of Peace—authored by members of a federal task force focused on extremism—nations around the world have suffered a five-fold increase in terrorist attacks following the post-9/11 policies unleashed by the U.S. and its allies.
The focus of the report—titled Beyond the Homeland: Protecting America from Extremism in Fragile States—maintains a very U.S.-centric worldview. And while it does little or nothing to critically challenge the widely criticized policies pursued by the Bush, Obama, or Trump presidencies, its tabulation of the dramatic rise in destablized states and growing terrorist violence throughout the regions where the U.S. military has been most active since 2001—namely, the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa—is nonetheless revealing."[end of quote]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Brits thought they were sooooo clever and make a "pig's breakfast" out of Europe, as they always did as a matter of policy.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister [rolls eyes and laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister (shortened)
No "satire" there at all.
Not "funny comedy" at all if one ends up as a "tool" of London's little divide and rule schemes.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists...
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against Germans and Russians (see Limitrophe States) and Russians against Romanians (see the Little Entente).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife. Divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Ask the affected millions what they wanted for themselves? Nah. That was below the lords...
So in 1939 Stalin and Hitler came along and made "a pig's breakfast" of the London lord's little scheme for their "divided continent" (see Secret protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact). They colluded, and made a pig's breakfast out of Poland. A pig's breakfast out of the Little Entente. The Limotrophe Staes? Right...more pig's breaksfast...
The lords wanted to play divide and rule with the continent's inhabitants indefinitely, for own gain, and in the end the UK became a junior partner and tool of Washington DC, and they lost their Empire. Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945 and a subsequent few years.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was reduced to the status of "a scrap of paper".
Awww. Sad. No nukes for the "special relationship" best fwiends. Subsequently Washington DC used British weakness and made a pig's breakfast out of British markets (economic warfare), and re-divided the world into "east and west".
Didn't anybody notice?
The world went from a divided continent, to suit the expansion/protection of the British Empire/London, to a divided world, to suit the expansion/protection of The American Century/Washington DC.
Awww...poor British Empire.
They wanted to "sow" their pig's breakfast to everybody else, and evtl. ended up "reaping": forced to eat their own words.
Lovely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please :-)
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels, and any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain, simply needed to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. Once "divided", there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Some examples regarding the theory in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors would offer a foothold in Europe.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have such consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement after 1895, amongst other less "valuable" suitors, was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below). The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises made"...lol
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...lol.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics sterted with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947. It is alive and well. It has surrounded every aspect of power politics on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Same with the funding of opposing European leaders and states (for example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s).
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else, while "eating popcorn and chips"...
1
-
For 100 years, settler colonists (Irgun, Lehi, Palmach, etc.) cooperating with the hegemon, carried out such practices of harassment, trying to coerce the original inhabitants to flee so they could occupy the land.
A hundred years ago the British Empire dispatched psychos like Orde Wingate (Special Night Squads) who took pleasure in random shootings, or waterboarding opposition to the British Empire in oil, sending the tortured back to their villages to report about the actions of their oppressors.
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron Bushell have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined.
Don't delay.
Start today.
1
-
@fascistnationalistmovement8055 Western meddling and western wars are directly proportional to the amount of valuable raw materials a "brown" country has.
In a nutshell, the more precious resources, the higher the level of political meddling, invasions, regime change, CIA covert operations, puppet crook dictatorships...
In short, "brown" countries without precious resources like Costa Rica, Botswana, and many more, are doing nicely thank you...
1
-
1
-
I get what you're saying, but there must be limitations on "hate".
If not, hate turns to violence.
That violence, coupled with a weak government bent on cutting the rule of common decency and laws, is a dangerous precedent. Once it is left to "the street" to "fight it out", with a small and therefore weak government standing impotent on the sidelines, or even thinking that "there are fine people on both sides", the downward spiral is preprogrammed...
I have studied history in great detail.
The same situation (a weak government, with a mindset of militarism deeply entrenched) has already played out once before.
A small weak government with a small weak military and police, who thought that "the street" should fight it out, secretly hoping that the right-wing would win against "commies"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Around 1900:
There was an informal alliance of "English speaking races" taking shape, which was busy "informally nodding off" each others' conquests.
The logical conclusion with regards to that should have been that according to age-old rules, the answer would have needed to be to create an alliance of "non-English speaking...ahem...'races'..." (to quote the advocates of "English speaking races" ruling the world").
Logic/reasoning: "Balance of Power"-strategy, which is neutral and unbiased.
The fools were elsewhere.
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: Edward in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.'
An ancillary detail, which seems to have gone under in the clutter.
"Civilizing factor" of course, nothing else but the hooded language of these "few" to kill a few people every now and then, in order to gain themselves, while convincing millions that they were the 'good cops'...
A few key London leaders thought they could use their geographical advantage to divide the continent, and thereby always be in a position "to rule" during crises and wars. In the end they became overpowered themselves: In the reality of strategy, the Truman Doctrine was the de facto "division" of Europe by Washington DC. Note that in geography and in geopolitics "Europe" includes GB and Russia. Germany could be "kept down", and the old friend and ally Russia was kept out as a matter of doctrine.
"Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with (feelings). As Huxley remarked ... the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny 'failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.'..." Neil Postman.
Huxley is less well-known, but far more correct.
The information, sufficient to understand "what happened" (in history), and "what is happening today" (news/headlines) is out there. But "what happens/is happening" is drowned out by a cacophony of irrelevant information, leading the overwhelming majority of people to simply "switch of"...simply repeating "narratives" in order to fit in with their surroundings.
Majorities ending up thinking their own "narratives" are the only correct ones.
Mission accomplished.
That is what strategists aim to achieve.
"Divide and rule/conquer."
Europe has been "divided" and "ruled" over for more than a hundred years.
Huxley points out how being confronted with millions of ancillary details, to confuse and divide cause most people to simply switch off...
Today, the problem is not that there is too little information which is "controlled by a few 1%-ters" (Orwell).
The issue is there is too much clutter (Huxley).
Huxley correctly points out that leaders don't really have to hide/burn much with "Operation Legacy"-style deceit, one just has to make it too boring or complicated to read for the overwhelming majority of citizens of a country. That makes the deceit right out there in our faces.
Those so convinced pay the taxes to bankroll the "cops", while the profits have always been raked in elsewhere.
Of course (reality) "military industrial complexes" have existed ever since the first blacksmith realized he could earn more by selling swords to a rich king, rather than to sell ploughs to poor farmers...
1
-
1
-
What connects the topic of this video, as "compartmentalized history" and 99% ancillary details, with the bigger overall European "picture"?
It is "divide and rule" as THE "systems/strategies" tier of things, as the 1% of history that counts...
Exemplary of a divide and rule/conquer strategy:
Entire regions of human beings are used or set up as proxies, as "walls" or "Limitrophe States" to seperate potential areas which might unite.
Wiki: "In modern history, it was used to refer to provinces that seceded from the Russian Empire at the end of World War I, during the Russian Civil War (1917–1922), thus forming a kind of belt or cordon sanitaire separating Soviet Russia from the rest of Europe during the interwar period.[4]... The nations were then "the cards to change hands in big political games" and included the Baltic peoples, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians."
These nations were, and still are today, simply "tools" for the empires who hold the geographical advantage of power
When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think*** today.
Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer of and over continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers.
These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology).
Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.
The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group. As for Wilson, was he really that naive to think that the large and prominent forces of isolationism would not prevail, and lead to the USA/Washington DC not joining any collectivised system of security for the entire planet?
Was there really no "Plan B" in Washington DC?
Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
The "oh so fine" British Lordships thought they could play divide and rule/conquer games with the world, and in the end British citizens and military men lost bigtime, as at the very end of the Empire, their own Lordships "...ran off with all the f%cking money..." (quote = George Carlin/ reality = tax havens).
The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely.
No, this is not a "yet another conspiracy theory," but elaborated and provided with sufficient evidence, and inductive/deductive reasoning on the other channel/video.
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
**As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the *systems/strategies tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@voightkampff7399 The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@masudaahmed7990 When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think*** today.
Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer of and over continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers.
These powers favorored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology). Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.
The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group. As for Wilson, was he really that naive to think that the large and prominent forces of isolationism would not prevail, and lead to the USA/Washington DC not joining any collectivised system of security for the entire planet?
Was there really no "Plan B" in Washington DC?
Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired. The "oh so fine" British Lordships thought they could play divide and rule/conquer games with the world, and in the end British citizens lost bigtime, as their own Lordships "...ran off with all the f%cking money..." (quote = George Carlin/ reality = tax havens). Note that in an exchange based on observations (realism) and definitions, that these cannot be "countered" by an opinion or a personal standpoint.
The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely.
No, this is not a "yet another conspiracy theory," but elaborated and provided with sufficient evidence, and inductive/deductive reasoning on the other channel/video.
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So what do you you base your beliefs on, if not emotion?
Thing is, 99 % of the comments here don't understand simple rules about what being American is about...
As a real American, you keep your opinions to yourself, and don't try to impose yourself onto others. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for all .
There is a simply rule in politics, known as "separation of church and state".
Chow should simply have abstained from voting, and kept her personal opinions to herself. Nobody would have cared.
Instead, she chose to link her personal belief system, to a political decision she made...yup, and that is exactly why millions of people once immigrated to the USA, to escape the bigotry of Europe...lol, honestly, the irony...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Notice how Rabin never used the term "full sovereign state" when he referred to this "Palestine", but the term "less than a state." Did you spot the use of [Israel's] "natural growth"? Critical question... Where to? Where would Israelis/Zionists "naturally grow" to, if there were equal neighbors, as a balanced power, which could actually stop any such Zionist settler "growth".
It is fairly clear what they wanted, and there are historical examples for this: the "pool of cheap labor" within the own borders, given a little bit of "independence" to manage own affairs, but de facto/de jure powerless to stop the CONTROLLING power, intended to be Jerusalem, as Jewish capital city.
It is literally what RSA did with their "Bantustans". Back then the people could not be fooled. They saw through the deceit, and rightfully called it out for what it was: just another Apartheid ploy to avoid the rise of equals.
Sad reality? Today masses of fools are being mislead into praising Israel's attempted implementation of Apartheid, while at the same time denouncing a similar scheme actually implemented by the RSA, as being bigotted/rascist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar.
Washington DC s strategy is constant, using a geographical position of power.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equilibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to, and gaslighting the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequilibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equilibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The "divide and control/rule/conquer"-world is intact. It is practically as old as modern civilisation, and has never been defeated. Those with true power will do their utmost to ensure that the "divide and rule"-world we live in today, will rule for all times, because the DIVIDERS win, if all others fail.
The divide-and-rule system is a formless headless global system composed of every imaginable race, religion, ethnicity, language group, class, creed as an "ingroup" of power. This ingroup which intends to DIVIDE emergent unity elsewhere, contains all forms of "personal conviction" as "-ism" imaginable, with only a little input from top tiers.
Their aim is division.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
I'm going to go against the common consensus in this thread.
In terms of "power", the tail does NOT "wag the dog".
Ever since WW1, the artificial manmade creation of "Israel" was a TOOL of empires, to destabilze the entire Middle East, as a "divide and rule" strategy of first London and Paris, then later the USA as British and French power weakened after the 1960s...
Zionism became a tool of the British Empire during WW1.
After WW2, the hegemon causing problems in the Levant and the ME in general, became Washington DC.
The Cold War and "oil" (interests), geopolitical/grand strategy strategic interests (like military bases, or the control of geographical chokepoints), was the reason for all of the US/collective West's meddling in the ME for more than 100 years...
From a position of POWER, the USA/collective West used and still uses, the age-old strategy of "divide and rule" over ALL these minor powers in the Middle East and therefore the Levant.
The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they initially created with their own desire to CONTROL and DOMINATE the world, as terrorists...
It's "divide and rule".
Stand up to the hegemon, and one becomes the outgroup.
It's ALWAYS divide and rule if governments defend wrongs against the wishes of most of its inhabitants. For the "dividers", the resulting division is always good. They can rule over the fear, the discord, manage the "finger pointers", and moderate the "pointed at" alike.
The "winners"?
Those who act like the historical "Rome" in the background, pulling the strings of POWER, affording favoratism to chosen ones, for their own aims and goals.
It's how "divide and rule" works...
1
-
Are you American, or European? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from the multitude of military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any platform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unraveling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a long term lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influential rich and powerful only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elvenkind6072 Then you might have something in common with Jesus, which is Buddhism. Some scholars even believe he actually visited the Indian subcontinent, and gathered a lot of his philosophy from what he experienced there, and then adapted it to the cultures of the Middle East.
Of course, nobody knows, and apart from circumstantial evidence (various similarities in these religions) there is no proof for such a theory. Maybe, the Three Wise Men...who knows.
I wish you luck on your quest too.
I never hated religion though, and never will.
People who truly follow religions in order to become better human beings are admirable. The only ones I have problems with are the "posers" who say they are religious, but in the background...well, you know...
These hypocrites will never find their way to their heaven, because even their Bible states so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrChunkylover53 Aah yes...Belgium.
WW1 was a war of choice.
Because each country which joined WW1 did so voluntarily, with the exception of Belgium.
There were no binding defense treaties (like NATO is today). The leaders of each country therefore implemented what is known as "war of choice". Each nation only has its own historical leaders to blame.
Blaming Germany for it, is a fallacious form of argumentation known as "outcome bias". That means that historical decisions once taken are judged by the outcome, rather than judged by what the original intention of the decision was.
As far as "poor Belgians" as Casus Belli for GB and the Empire....
First off: "poor Belgians" was an emotional argument, same as "WMDs" and "Saddam Hussein involved in 9/11" back in 2003....and its always the same people who are going to be fooled by it. The young, and the ignorant.
Belgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB.
In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
According to historians, the British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war", in other words, Belgium was Casus Belli.
Correct?
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". In other words, no invasion, no Casus Belli...
Also correct?
Berlin therefore approached London, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
Belgium was a so-called geostrategic barrier to ensure the Policy of Balance of Power, and protect the British Empire. GB fought WW1 for own interests, not the "safety of others" or any other emotional argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
The POWER of the "divide and rule/conquer"-technique is ageless and spans many empires globally, and throughout the ages, because it is predicated on human nature itself.
Israel.
The "favorite" of men who play god.
From a position of POWER, pick a favorite in the Levant, and play "divide and rule" in the Middle East/Eurasia...
The "favorite" of men who play god.
Favoratism is always indicative of a "divide and rule"-strategy.
An observed "divide and rule"-strategy is always indicative of imperialism.
There is a fracture zone starting at the North Pole, stretching southwards through Finland, the Baltic States, Poland, the Ukraine, through the Caucasus, Iran, all the way down to the Middle East. Here it links up with another fracture zone all along the north coast of North Africa. From the Middle East, another fracture zone runs eastwards, via India, through SE Asia, north through the Philippenes, the divided Koreas, Taiwan, Japan back up to the North Pole.
Expect the dividers to show up here, in search of "buck catchers".
As strategy of power as old as the mountains.
The "divide and rule"-strategy or technique has a pretty long history in the Levant, which had been a desirable crossroads of civilizations ever since ancient times (land route connecting continents/systems) with changing POWERS implementing the strategy as time passed. If one wishes to understand history, one first has to familiarize oneself with strategies of power. If not, one WILL get misguided, distracted, and fooled into cheering for "imperialism", even whilst thinking one is cheering for "freedom and democracy", or something else...
Note that in order to play the game of "divide and rule", it needs a geographical/physical advantage, and POWER.
No POWER, no games...
In a more worldly sense.
As far as systems and strategies are concerned.
The few million people initially injected as "anchor state" (strategy) into the Levant, by an empire after WW1, are not going to rule/dominate the Levant.
Such a small number is always a "tail", and not the "dog".
The tail (lesser power) does NOT wag the dog (greater power).
That is just an easily chanted slogan, created by the dividers, in search of scapegoats for the slogan chanters/banner wavers.
It is a myth and a tool of deception and misdirection, by those who truly wish to rule by division. The ruling class. The elites, or the "1%-ters", the "$uperhubs", or whatever one wishes to call such a headless mass, united by their interests.
In the real world, it is the "dogs" of POWER, who "wag the tails".
Modern Israel is a tool, once created by an Empire for a specific purpose, just like every other ME country was created for a purpose.
The sooner ALL these divided semites in the Levant realize this, the better it will be for ALL semites.. They are ALL tools.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The time is approaching.
A pivot of history.
For 50 years after 1945 the citizens of the USA have lived the "good life" at the expense of the rest of the world in the immediate post-WW2 years, when the rest of the planet was so weak it could not avoid US institutions/military/NGOs from imposing themselves, and vacuuming off enormous gain from a position of unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL invincibility...
Now, that ratio is down to 30% of the world's wealth.
It's decreasing...
What does the USA look like today? What will it look like when this amount of wealth of the world reaches 20%, or then 10%? When US citizens finally get closer to a "fair share" of the world's resources/wealth, and have to make do with the same amounts as everybody else, they will finally find out what level of psychopathy they have systemically enabled inside, operating from within their OWN country/state. When they can no longer vacuum off the wealth of the world, in an unfair manner (50% for us, the 6% of the planet), they will start finding out what human nature is like.
When the current 4% of the planet, have to make do with 4-5% of the world's wealth and resources as other nations come and take a fairer share of these resources for themselves, the USA will become EVERYthing they have always criticized, and finally discover they are just like everybody else.
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
Ruth Bader-Ginsburg: "To Those Accustomed to Privilege Equality feels like Oppression".
In the coming years, Americans are going to start feel soooooo "oppressed" and feel the urge to fight back against "all those jelis peepil" (🤣😂) the 95% of the planet, who somehow had to manage with the other 50% of the wealth/resources for the fifty or sixty years after 1945...
America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this desirable disparity continues.
Set up "patterns" of European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
CONTROL the access to its own POWER.
Keep others either "down" or "out" per "rulings".
No, that isn't a "conspiracy theory".
It is "divide and rule", in different contexts, on different tiers, and in different eras of history.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
CONTROL the resources, which are the limiting factor (NOT "money" which is simply a "means" to divide)
Find volunteers and local ambitious rulers who collaborate, who "dance for money", and the sky is the limit for the dividers...
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) as the template.
The strategy to avoid unity in Eurasia, or to avoid "avoid war" (note: double negative), has been the same for the past 200 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just for context:
She delivered an unrequested sermon...
“As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true,” Chow wrote. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman.
Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
Again, Christians try to define what is "right", and then cry foul if they are called out for their narrow mindedness....
Nobody asked her to give a sermon, and quite frankly, people are tired of it.
Nobody has to listen to anybody's personal opinions about "right vs wrong".
The founding fathers drafted the Declaration of Independence, that grants every American the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and hapiness "
Yup, as a real American, that trumps your or mine, or some random Christian's sermon any day, don't you think?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Advice for the inhabitants of Greenland.
Please look back in history, in order to see your future.
When your new "friends" come, please, please bow down and smile along, just like Hawaiians did 150 years ago (post-1850s). Then, you'll the be good people, on the crucial "right side of history." Bow down deep, and don't be naughty like the islanders of Puerto Rico and offer resistance. Remember, when the money elites come from major US cities, to buy up and OWN everything around you, try not to be obstinate. Just give up all your prime ancestral lands to these outsiders and multi-national corporations, and don't resist as everyone around slowly (slippery slope) become sellouts and opt for the money...
Dear Greenlanders, for inside these two "histories" (Hawaii, Puerto Rico) you can see your future which will rhyme, when your "friends" arrive on your shores with their shareholder "meets & greets" and the political "grips & grabs" for the cameras, for the adoring crowds back home. Forget about an affordable health insurance, 'cos think about the bright side: you'll have McDonalds on every corner, and Red Dye 40 poisoning your kids. Laws? Hahahaaa... Who needs dumb laws, if you got "Freedumb baby"...
So you think you have a European strong big brother protecting you? Think again, because so did Hawaiians (British Empire), before all the "friends" came with their super dealmakers...
Oh, and dear Greenlanders, don't be naughty and think "capitalism" is actually important. See Panama, as exemplary. A hundred years ago, they dared thinking they could sell themselves for a good price determined by themselves, at a time they were still called "Colombians". Now, they are not "Colombians" anymore. And nobody cares, because they don't know, haven't been informed by their colluding top tiers, and therefore do not know what they lost.
God forbid, do not follow the path of all those terrible people of Cuba, who dared choose the "wrong" friends, when all the previous "right" friends did was to rob them blind during their Era of Robber Barons, taking it all for themselves and their local collaborators. You, the little Greenland guy, MUST be grateful for every crumb that falls off the richly-lain table as you see the resources exported, and the strategic locations put under US jurisdiction or military rule (see Diego Suarez). Should you resist, their wrath is eternal, and impossible to turn.
You don't understand what any of this means?
In that case, your future is already programmed, and once your new leaders are in power (Young Global Leaders endorsed by Washington DC, and their friends and proxies), and if you resist them, their minors (dancers for gifts/Salome) will "demand your head on a silver platter" (allegory) to protect their mastahs. An example of this is the "Cuban voting block" as factor in US elections. Understand? Yes? No? It doesn't matter if YOU understand or not, because those who will determine YOUR future in a well-greased system do not care.
It's about MONEY and POWER.
Regardless of whether Salome was a real event or not, the biblical allegory is a lesson in strategies of power, and the roles actors play within a power structure. Those who dance for the powerful, for money, or for gain for their systems, or for a position of power (aka "kissing the you-know-what"), or to keep their own roles/positions as actors in a power structure intact.
The future of Greenland is the past of Hawaii.
They covet thy, and will get it.
Afterwards, their hordes will look at all the "broken eggs," and the "omelette," will laugh at their private inside jokes, and ask: "But, but, what did you lose? Oh dear friend, you never lost anything…"
Regarding the allegory of Salome, and regardless of all the variations or depictions, old power (ideology) does not like the rise of new power (ideology), if you are the original owners of the land. To these outsiders who create their own histories by simply pinning their flag on the timeline, same way they plant their flags all over your shores, it means that "HISTORY STARTS HERE!" Just remember that when you look back and contemplate what life was like under Danish rule and thought it wasn't very rosy, that you cannot reverse the clock when it becomes worse...
Today, many Americans stuck in their daily grind ask themselves why all these US dollars are being globally spread so copiously all over the world as they struggle to cope, funding dictators and democracies alike, funding peace and war at the same time, paying for destruction over there and reconstruction somewhere else; all they have to do is read their history.
Because divide-and-rule comes with a "price tag".
Victorian Era Brits should know. They also wallowed in poverty, as their Empire "ruled the world" with division, and their rulers did the same.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zsoltpeter2858 Strategische Bombardierung ist die teuerste Art der Kriegsführung überhaupt.
Die Briten haben sich selbst in den Bankrott gebombt, weil sie unbedingt jede Stadt plattbombadieren wolltet.
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every civilian killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
1
-
1
-
Future predictions
There are always quite a few comments on videos about Churchill of him „getting it right“ about Hitler.
The narrative goes something like this: Churchill was right all along, because he was smart. „Weany libruls“ ruined the world with their „hop-ie chang-ie“ attitude. How could everybody else have been so stupid, and not see it coming?
So how difficult is it to predict the future? Let‘s find out...
All throughout the 1920s and 1930s, there was this dangerous ideology which threatened us all…
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Wahhabism,-terrorism-and-the-'confessions'-of-a-Saudi-prince-43465.html
And then Dachau and other slave camps. What kind of people would enslave their neighbors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Saudi_Arabia
And, oh...you know that „burning books“- thingy…
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall09/jawad_n/traditionalmedia.html
And racism...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Saudi_Arabia
Purges and taking out rivals was a sure indication that Hitler was getting rid of the internal opposition to his agenda. Obviously, everybody knows where that goes...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-crackdown-corruption-or-critics/
Of course, even during the Olympics, he was just presenting his best side, cheating us with a few cheap tricks. Obviously, these „cheap tricks“ were only created to fool the international world. So obvious, right?https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-women-driving.html
He went about, intimidating little neighboring states….
https://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-threatens-block-qatar-s-land-sea-borders-541971.html
The Spanisch Civil War and the Legion Condor was simply „honing skills“. Obviously just training to attack somebody else. Why didn‘t anybody stop him? Were they plain dumb?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian%E2%80%93led_intervention_in_Yemen
And that increase in arms was a dead giveaway. Honestly! Let‘s invade now, before Hitler gets even stronger…
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/05/20/donald-trump-signs-tremendous-deal-with-saudi-arabia/
And remember what happened when the world started to criticise the aggression? Yes, he left the League of Nations, because it was bad. Of course, the ENTIRE world was wrong, not the aggression.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_United_Nations
And when he makes "new friends" with Stalin, he's only looking for a free back. Obviously, he'll come back for Stalin later. Didn't they read Mein Kampf?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/israel-saudi-arabia-relations/
Oh, and did I mention war?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/07/the-first-saudi-iranian-war-will-be-an-even-fight/
How could everybody have been so stupid?
Didn‘t they see it coming?
So what was the real intention behind that „you chose dishonor, and you shall have war“- speech?
Of course, when making a future prediction, there can only be two outcomes.
You can be right.
You can be wrong.
So what would have happened if Churchill had simply been wrong because of some freak twist of destiny there was no war? Easy answer...nothing.
So what happened when it did turn out he was right? Correct. Pats on the back, fans sneering at rivals, recognition, political power, influence, and all of that.
Obviously, Churchill stood everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "freedom and democracy"-argument as a cover story for ulterior motives has a long history.
THE PROTOTYPE COLOR REVOLUTION
"For Jefferson, as he wrote to Abigail (in private), it was the end of an epoch. It was the end of one epoch and the beginning of another in Europe too. ... In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution ... who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile..." Adams and Jefferson : a Revolutionary dialogue / Merrill D. Peterson, Digital Library of Georgia Online Plattform
Setting up such "Color Revolutions" throughout their history, and training/supporting revolutionaries in the name of freedom, whilst in reality simply expanding the own spheres of interests by dividing others, has had a long American history. The divide and rule strategy of potentially damaging opposing systems (in the above case, in Europe), are kept in a state of revolutions and upheaval using the "freedom - revolution - democracy" arguments.
Asia beware.
Keep a lookout for the tell-tale signs of a US led divide and rule strategy, to set up Asians against each other as a repeat of history.
Making use of the own geographical advantage of distance, the US advance via staging areas (like Hawaii, or the Philippines 1898) continued one step at a time, as other nations were set up against each other with clear intent, as revealed by private discussions and letters...not the kind words and speeches intended for the consumption of the MSM news readers, since even waaaay back then all MSM was already in the hands of the billionaire class.
A few years later...
"From the outset of hostilities, Roosevelt, his pro-Japanese sympathies notwithstanding, privately wished for the continued presence of Russia in East Asia to serve as a counterweight against Japanese expansionism. He perceived that Japanese domination of the region could prove as detrimental to American "Open Door" policy objectives as had the Russian domination. As early as March 19, 1904, he expressed in a letter to his friend Cecil Arthur Spring Rice (then the secretary to the British delegation in St. Petersburg) a hopeful supposition that "the two powers will fight until both are fairly well exhausted, and that then peace will come on terms which will not mean the creation of either a yellow peril or a Slav peril.” The astonishing pace of Japanese arms through the succeeding months gradually convinced the President that a rapid cessation of the war was necessary to preserve Russian influence in the contested region. Writing to Whitelaw Reid, the American ambassador to Britain, on June 5, 1905, Roosevelt admitted that he "should be sorry to see Russia driven out of East Asia,” and averred that "driven out she will surely be if the war goes on.” In sum, he stated to Senator Henry Cabot Lodge on June 16, 1905, "It is best that (Russia) should be left face to face with Japan so that each may have a moderative action on the other." 1994 Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Jonathan Bennett Ault College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences (pp.49-51)
The same so-called good guys of history, because for these powerful US statesmen and their willing local tools, "crimes are those that others commit" (quote Noam Chomsky).
These dividers of entire nations and continents are above the law.
Don't ever expect the American legal system to punish such advocates of divide and rule and the bloodshed it results in.
Don't expect a majority of Americans to call out their leaders for what they are doing.
They either haven't been informed, or don't understand because of their warmongering MSM, don't know, don't care, or even if they did, are not going to stop their leaders...
The overwhelming number of Americans, in the sinecure comfort of their "mommy's basements"-existences, are not like Noam Cholmsky, John Mearsheimer, or Brian Berletic, and many others who know what their government is up to and are actually willing to speak out.
They are the real heroes of history, following in the footsteps of such "prototype whistleblowers" like Smedley-Butler...
The "revolutionary training"-experts care little about the subsequent bloodshed. They are in complete disregard the biblical rule "do not steal/kill", those responsible will "wash hands in innocence", and "point the finger elsewhere" as deflection from their own actions. It is also arguably the cheapest way to expand the own sphere of influence, and gain markets for own products, which is why they do it.
It is a cheap way to aquire spheres of influence because the heavy lifting, and bloodshed, is borne by local individuals who had been set up against each other.
Asians beware...
The "dividers" WILL come for you again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GayasAIDS Hamas,
just like every single "terrorist" organisation EVER, at any point in history ever, in any geographical location ever, by any religion ever, are always an EFFECT of oppression.
The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they created themselves with own PREVIOUS political actions, as terrorists...
Terrorism/Freedom fighting (POV) is always an "effect" not a "cause."
If you live in the west, then you (personally), or your parents, grandparents or previous generations have never ever ever fought anybody your own leaders have not personally set you up against.
Try me on this one.
Name me the war, incl. this current "War on Terror", and I'll inform you how your own government created it (aka "lay the foundation").
1
-
@julielenchner7257 He is not "right" about anything.
He oozes "bias" out of every pore, making him a useful idiot for a cause.
The cause is continued settler colonialism in the Levant, which is antisemetic in nature, using expendable pawns, a strategy as old as mankind.
He is is eith knowingly, or unknowingly supporting imperialism.
Zionism became a tool of the British Empire during WW1.
After WW2, the hegemon causing problems in the Levant and the ME in general, became Washington DC.
The Cold War and "oil" (interests), geopolitical/grand strategy strategic interests (like military bases, or the control of geographical chokepoints), was the reason for all of the US/collective West's meddling in the ME for more than 100 years...
From a position of POWER, the USA/collective West uses the strategy of "divide and rule" over these minor powers in the ME, and the Levant.
Jwes (whichever way categorized) are as much a victim, as they are benefactors.
1
-
1
-
@momsmushroomsjodyfoster5786 and @GayasAIDS
Hamas, just like every single "terrorist" organisation EVER, at any point in history ever, in any geographical location ever, by any religion ever, are always an EFFECT of oppression.
The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they created themselves with own PREVIOUS political actions, as terrorists...
Terrorism/Freedom fighting (POV) is always an "effect" not a "cause."
If you live in the west, then you (personally), or your parents, grandparents or previous generations have never ever ever fought anybody your own leaders have not personally set you up against.
Try me on this one.
Name me the war, incl. this current "War on Terror", and I'll inform you how your own government created it (aka "lay the foundation").
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shanarchy614 Unfortunately, the world is filled to the brim with bootlickers, of whom there are several in this comments thread.
My favorite imperialist quote/standpoint of all times must be "if I don’t steal your home, someone else will steal it," made by a settler colonist to the helpless Palestinian owner of a house he was occupying.
In fact this single statement reflects the essence of all historical imperialist greed during the era of European imperialism which peaked around 1900, because all the leaders of the imperialist powers and all their fanboys (and few fangirls too, I assume) thought that if they didn't rock up some place hundreds or thousands of miles away from their place of birth, to stick their banner down (or paper-plant-down the "rights" of their corporations "Smedley-Butler"-style), or "teach lessons" to some locals, that some or other different imperialist, waving a different banner, and chanting a different slogan, might just beat them to it.
All such cases of imperialists accusing others of being imperialists, and the excuse then being that "if I don't do WRONG, then somebody else will do WRONG before I get there".
The imperialist mindset is exposed BY the "imperialist" (or apologists), by way of what they consider the "norm".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
Obviously, they were ALL wrong.
Small wonder Mark Twain preferred his dog, over such forms of humanity ("some" I assume, not to generalize, since there are good and bad people in all societies and cultures, and these are revealed by their actions, and what positions they defend).
IMHO, at some point in a debate, every activist for a cause should just take a gun in their hands, and actually start shooting for what they so vociferously support with their words. Then, be honest, and actually admit they never would voluntarily die for the causes they "defend" with their words. Unfortunately, the world is filled to the brim with those who are very vocal in their support of a cause during the countdown, or when its only about words, but when it comes to the actual clash, there is an entire list of reasons why they or their kids shouldn't be in those "bloody trenches" themselves.
Do you agree, Shannon?
My top 5 of excuses for "Why SOMEBODY ELSE should go, fighting for what I believe in":
- "I'm too old." (or variations of that)
- "I'm just here for the argument, I don't actually know how to shoot." (or variations of that)
- "I'm too rich, and have too much to lose." (or variations of that)
- "I've got a family and a cat to support." (or variations of that)
- "There is an interesting football match on tonight which I just can't miss, so mebbe tomorrow." (or variations of that)
Yes, believe it or not, when it comes to seperating the straw from the chaff, such advocates for pushing an own agenda to point to actual conflict shine with their absence and can't even answer simple questions like:
Would you at any point have actually fought and died for "poor little Israel which never did anything wrong."?
None of these "mommy's basement dwellers" will ever risk their lives to put their money where their mouths are.
1
-
1
-
@NO-ZIO-NO-PROBLEM The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fact: By own admission, and known to all, the USA misuses NATO as a tool to ensure its global hegemony.
For that it needs "Euroweanies" that it can manipulate.
Just enough emotionally steered "Euroweanies" who are easily manipulated in a giant "divide and rule"-game, which uses a variety of emotionally-laden topics to incite outrage, tear open old wounds (history), and/or use negative human emotions like greed or the fear of losing out, etc. to stir up trouble.
"Trouble" can then be swum in, like a fish in water.
As soon as there is some signs of more unity, the various well-funded "think tanks" and "lobby groups" (aka "strategic studies"...ahem..."centers") remind the people how "evil" the "others" still are, what they did a hundred years ago, how they "wanted to kill your grand-dadda", whatever...
Beware of the dividers.
Age-old advice: "When a man is prey to his emotions, he is not his own master" (Benedict de Spinoza).
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]"
Or as the old "insider joke" goes: NATO's "function" is "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out."
Nobody needs "friends" like that.
When "mutual defence" becomes a secondary function, and is rated below "big power ambitions", it is time to think the unthinkable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All "empires" come in four toxic flavors.
Regarding "the bully", and human nature, there is a direct connection between how individuals and states act and react: obviously, since states are made up of individuals with an intent of gain motive. One can therefore draw comparissons between the micro level of individuals or small scale systems (society and companies), and the macro level of corporations, big power interests, and therefore states and empires.
They all act, and react in similar ways, and the connecting link is strategy.
Dr. Gary Namie conducted an exhaustive series of micro level studies to conclude that there are four categories of toxic bullies in society and the workplace, based on the carefull observation and close encounters with other human beings. The four types of bullies are the Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper.
Screaming Mimi is the fist-wielding screamer who chooses a public setting in order to vociferously point fingers in your face...
Two-Headed Snake is the Jekyll and Hyde back-stabber, who steals the credit for the hard work of others. They smile and are 100% in control of body language with studied "backpats" and superficial compliments, yet behind the back spread lies, rumor, innuendo in order to damage reputations of adversaries...
The Constant Critic is another one of the "finger pointing"-variety of of "friends", who's not above falsifying information, or burning documents, to pin “mistakes” on others...
The Gatekeepers withhold resources others need to succeed, jealously guarding own privileges against other systems trying to make it...
Our history books are full of warnings against the "screaming Mimi" variety, characterized by images of a fist-wielding screaming Hitler, yet when it comes to other bully tactics, the inhabitants of various systems of gain become remarkably acquiescent, apologetic, and complacent about observed, or unobserved actions of bullying. Bullying is of course nothing else but a strategy, and because the other three bully types are easily disguised, the overwhelming number of citizens of western style democracies go to bed each night, secure in the knowledge that they live in superior systems (democracy/capitalism). Both democracy and capitalism are designed to overpower and conquer other systems, but the means they use are more difficult to spot.
Empires come in 4 toxic flavors: The Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper.
We as individuals are constantly warned about the first, but we should watch out for what we're not being told: keep a lookout for the last three.
To "avoid avoiding war" by the strategy of "pushing until something snaps" is one characteristic.
Bullies also manipulate millions of people, via mostly loyal squires or henchmen.
Re. the question why all the observed reality is allowed to happen, is based on human nature, and the nature of our prefered systems of capitalism/democracy.
The supreme bully strategy is that of divide and rule: Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
1
-
@kimobrien. The USA wanted markets and spheres of influence, and "played" ALL European leaders like the proverbial "fiddles" they were.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had the global influence of the Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you live in the "global South", do not relax yet, or celebrate any assumed victories of creating more unity. The USA/collective West have one more ace up their sleeve.
Capturing the hearts and minds of the (mainly) young, rebellious, and easily-influenced, is a long-term goal of what W.T. Stead set out to do as the "Americanization of the World" (book) on all tiers: ideology, food, industrial products, movies, language, etc. Of course, what he didn't mention back then almost a hundred years ago when this global strategy started, was that this was in effect an old Roman-era strategy of power: to morph the conquered, to become "like Rome." Fill the bellies of the global masses ("Bread") and distract them with entertainment ("Circuses"), and then turn them into the tools of the empire.
Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy.
It historically gave Europeans, and after 1900 the USA/collective West, the basis of the power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other.
The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
Divide-and-rule was the advantage they thought they held 100 and 200 years ago, and they think it still is today.
There can be only 1 "winner". The others are the systemic "cannon fodder" for the gain of the few "buck passers".
Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything wrong (sic./apologia), nobody ever decided anything bad (sic./apologia), everybody can always simply point the finger (reality in the "superior West"), everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, profiteers, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and finger-pointers...
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power (in stages after 1890), in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) and their "buck-catchers", nodded off by the "buck passers" which hold the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed right through to today.
Whatever...
Guess who "wins"?
The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand).
The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction (MIRVs carrying nukes) as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you live in a frontier fort composed of armed civilians, intended to surround a concentration camp, then what did these settler colonists expect? Neighbors who bring them candy and flowers, from the dusty camp they've been encircled into?
Hamas was created by Israel with a divide and rule intention, to undermine the authority of the PLO. Search that and one will find hundreds of articles, incl. from Israeli sources, which will confirm this intentional Israeli strategy of deceit and division.
Gaza is the world's biggest concentration camp, ringed in by a cicle of Kibbutzim, inhabited by armed settler colonists. If you want to know what's going on, ask a Jwe. They will honestly tell you straight in your face, and dare you to resist: "We are a generation that settles the land, and without the steel helmet and the cannon's fire we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home.” -- Moshe Dayan
The intention is ethnic cleansing, and a pretext is needed to vacate the land under the terror of cannon fire, in order to create the next concentration camp, ringed in by the next ring of Kibbutzim, inhabited by the next selection of future "victims of terrorism"...
What you are witnissing today, is the own biblical "logic" of "reap as you sow". Israeli strategists, from within the safety of their walled encampments far away, intended to "sow division" between the peoples of Palestine, and now individual Israelis and foreigners are "reaping" the effects of these previous own political choices. Not a nice personal tale, agreed, so sorry about the personal misfortune of living in a frontier fort, and choosing to become a tool of encirclement.
But the own personal decisions to live a life as soldiers of fortune, using the own families as a human shields, whilst surrounding an open-air concentration camp as a tool of strategic encirclement, sometimes have unhappy consequences...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
These "little known back stories" reveal the geopolitics behind the decisions of the people who lead us.
Fact: Washington DC attempted to keep the secret of nuclear weapons out of the hands of London, if only for as long as possible, until "Rule Britannia" had collapsed, opening the way to "rule America"...
[Google The American Century]
When yet another European war broke out, the "best friends" over on the other side of the Atlantic, far far away from the action...where in no danger whatsoever...
In reality, it was "The American Century" for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and cute "Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world works...
Has anybody ever wondered why the "best friends" over in the New World didn't sail in like heroes to help out in 1939 or 1940?
Because during WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
The USA said to the rest of the world, including "special friends", you shall not have nuclear weapons!
[Google British Nuclear Program]
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
That is some weird "special relationship" if you ask me.
A "friend" who does not even want you to have nukes, if he has some himself?
1
-
1
-
@johnburns4017 What makes you think that (later President) Eisenhower's strategy was "amateurish" or "accidental"?
The reality is that Washington DC did what advanced the American Century.
It was the strategy all along.
Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up power" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
Of course other excuses were made. "The commies are just too strong", or "sorry, we don't have enough nukes", etc. These were excuses though, not actual reasons.
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
With a simply "no", Washington was now the nr. 1, and the new "ruler of the world".
1
-
@johnburns4017 @John Burns What makes you think that (later President) Eisenhower's strategy was "amateurish" or "accidental"?
The reality is that Washington DC did what advanced the American Century.
It was the strategy all along.
Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up power" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
Of course other excuses were made. "The commies are just too strong", or "sorry, we don't have enough nukes", etc. These were excuses though, not actual reasons.
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
With a simply "no", Washington was now the nr. 1, and the new "ruler of the world".
[PS unfortunately the creator does not allow me to post links, and comments with links get swiped or "autoblocked". Please google and familiarize yourself with The American Century, Operation Unthinkable, and the British Policy of Balance of Power for the continent.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I grew up with that "they (outgroup) came from the North, and we (ingroup) came from the South, and we met in the middle"-bs.
It's just that. It's a bs. story of settler colonialist who came FROM EUROPE. Africans on the other hand, came from Africa.
The story is a false equivalency, in order to create a feelgood story for historical land theft from indigeous peoples, some taking place within our lifetimes (District 6, Cape Town).
Europeans in the USA, Australia, the Levant (Middle East), and everywhere else tell themselves similar stories, to "feel good" about the way their ancestors violently displaced indigenous peoples as settler colonial projects.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dudbad That works both ways. The best way to avoid excessive migration is to ensure that as many people on the planet have a "safe and cozy place to live",
In first line, that means ending the constant interventions, invasions, and support and funding of proxy wars so typical of the post-Cold War era.
You destroy people's livelihood, it is guaranteed they'll seek to go elsewhere...greener pastures.
Yes, I agree that the immigrant should always adapt to the local culture and environment, as all whites who emigrate do with pleasure. They always abandon their gods, learn the local language, dress the local way, never use guns or force to impose their own culture onto others, and genearlly adapt and live according to the local customs...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
FAUX liberal empires, who can read past statements made by their leaders, and which were actually implemented reveal their own true nature.
To gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves (and then stand in their "shiny houses on hills" claiming everybody else is either jealous or greedy). If not by direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony. Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources. That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only IR (international Relations). Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
After reaching the top of the hill in 1945, claim this was vital to assure peace (unipolarity as an ideology rather than a neutral academic study), because "we" are the best system, which is a false premise of course. The USA came out on top of the world because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better system, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the abilty to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the USA as state was not "good," but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy then everybody else.
That of course says nothing about the people of the USA who are overwhelmingly good people, generous, and helpful.
The people are, however, NOT the state or the "1%" which has selfish "cold hard interests" (Mitch McConnel).
At least 50-90% of Americans are NOT priviledged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire claims as its justified "right" to CONTROL, as they are slowly but surely finding out for themselves: it is not 1960, or 1990, or the year 2000 anymore. The current 90% of the planet, are not going to be satisfied with the "50%" of resources which the USA/collective West has granted to them as "sufficient."
From the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other sytems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that "all other systems are bad/evil", want to "rule the world" or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system of government is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthoat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and their true human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote1
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
From a position of POWER, divide everybody else.
Peace.
Beware.
1
-
1
-
@Delogros There is only "history".
As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives".
One perspective should not rank higher than another.
Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" or "revisionist", and therefore "less valuable".
The reality?
As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The history of East Asia did not start on Oct 7th.
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give a weak mind money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And if you lie, steal, and kill, then that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS.
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The entire USA/collective West is NATO, and they were "poking the bear" as collective effort. Now all these weak minds are scurrying around, trying to find somebody more guilty than themselves. An age-old blame game.
N ew
A tlanticist
T erritorial
O peration
The stick poking the bear...or as John Mearsheimer famously predicted, the "buck passers" setting up millions of people in the "favoured country" to "catch the buck" if the effort to encroach/encircle another state failed, so others bleed for the own expansive aims. Now they are "poking the Dragon (China)"...
This is divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans.
- Caucasus region/Black Sea (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those being encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon.
This is divide-and-rule.
This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their current subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
------------------------------------
The bigger picture can be distorted, and the strategy of divide-and-rule hidden behind narratives of benevolence...
For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented (de facto reality). For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
What lessons can we learn from the current mess in the Ukraine?
Lesson 1:
Don't become the "next Ukraine".
Lesson 2:
Don't forget "Lesson 1".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peterelliott2914 Slight correction. Centralized historical China never set out to achieve a global empire.
It has always and only been operating in its own border regions (East Asia).
To understand this, one must first understand the concept of "Chinese". Being "a Chinese" today is solely a nationality, NOT a language, ethnicity, religion, etc.
The Chinese empire has always been multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-ideological, multi-cultural, and as "multi-everthing-else" as Europe was on the other side of Eurasia.
That made both susceptable to outside meddling.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even in hindsight, it was not a mistake.
Unfortunately, the way the world had been set up post-WW1, there was no alternative to appeasing Hitler.
And even those relying on "Churchill" (aka "the hardliner") for their alternative history, must admit reality.
If in power, Churchill would have done the same as Chamberlain, because (reality) the British Prime Minister doesn't have the authority to declare war out of the blue, and that would have depended on how the ministers would have debated it out...
The second "reality" was that in 1938, the Legion Condor was in Spain, next to Gibraltar (15,000 well-trained and combat ready soldiers with tanks and air support). Also, an Italian dictator keen on "Mare Nostrum" and a Spain which would have liked Gibraltar back....hmmm....a rather unfortunate combination of "reality" concentrated in one area vital to the British Empire.
Churchill of course, was a naval strategist.
1) Would Churchill (a navy guy) have risked losing Gibraltar to "protect little nations"?
2) What would the lords in London have thought about "protecting little nations"?
3) And even if they did value "little nations" enough to declare war on their behalf, what would have been the first military/strategic priority had it come to war in 1938?
Especially the last one being not a difficult question to answer...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@voodooprince5561 No, laugh at fools...
So British leaders bombed the British Empire into ruin.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
Sorreeee. That's what happens when you make the wrong "fwiends".
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Nice exchange.
The current generation of kiddies can chant "Bomber Harris do it again" for all eternity.
It only cost the Brits their Empire...
Seems like a fair deal.
😆😅😂😁😀
1
-
Europeans are born losers as long as they remain divided, until they figure this out.
Note here, a little detail most cannot see because of their compartmentalized brains: BOTH the Ukraine and Russia are in Europe, and Russia is also in Eurasia.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures" (see the recent WH exchange). This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021). All under the narrative of the marching being "voluntary (state sovereignty) actions" by the new best fwiends…
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: has used divide-and-rule onto others, incl. Europe post-1900, a strategy which includes using friends and using their neighbours, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others.
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
Washington DC and "American interests" have already "won". See Nordstream: American corporations buying up the ruins, pivoting to Russia, and when the "peace" is reinstated in some future, a US corporation will own the infrastructure, siphon off profit as middleman, and Washington DC will CONTROL this future resource flow into Europe de facto and de jure...
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Henry Kissinger stated Washington DC's policy for the American Century: "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests." That simply means empires don't have friends, and if your little nation is no longer useful, it'll be written off with a few thoughts and prayers. The hegemon will wiggle and slime their way from "victory" to victory, as long as everyone else does not unite. That is how the strategy of divide-and-rule works.
In a graphic depiction of systems the "divide-and-rule"-world under which division rules, is diametrically opposed to the logic of a balance of powers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS.
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Once there is an inpact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, and big business, and Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Re. "Who benefited most from Mers, and who lost most".
The general consensus is that The British Empire was the "winner", and that "France was the loser".
Wrong.
Reality? For the second time in 20 years, "the lights would go out", and others would benefit. Because, the type of rule or economy plays little role in the outcome of whether one "rules the world" or not.
Geography plays a far bigger role.
So at the turn of century London "ruled the world" because geography isolated them from the continent and their island status gave them the upper hand at a time when war was still the common way to determine "top dog" or not....
When development of weapons produced ever further reaching weapons of war, GB's island status did not offer the same measure of protection anymore...so they went down.
The weapons of 1900 couldn't harm the British Empire, but the weapons of 1945 could....
In that era around WW2, it was the USA which was (as the sole power) isolated from this "great game", and benefited as the result of its geographical isolation, and because there was that "one ring which ruled them all"...lol, but in a good way of course.
And it wasn't only the forces of evil who wanted to "rule the world", but also people who thought they had a God-given right to do so...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
...and who thought they were better than everybody else...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
1
-
@thevillaaston7811 I "speak English", so how could I ever ever intend harm? :-D
Just like everyone who "speaks English" must be "a fwiend", right?
Right...
It all started off soooo gweat...
That "Hollywood movie Band of Brothers"-stuff.
Everyone speaking English.
The good guys...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE 2:
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thevillaaston7811 The same Apartheid which led to the failure of South Africa in the 1970s/1980s is the same "apartheid" which led to the end of the pathetic "Empire".
Of course, in both cases the gentlemen in control were too slow to pull the helm around, and change the disastrous course the "ship" was steering.
Reminds me of Captain Smith on the Titanic shouting "Full speed ahead!".
Do you understand why I left SA as soon as I reached the age of reason?
For the British Empire.
1) Make timely internal changes:
In a nutshell, more "freedom, liberty, and self-determination" for all the subjects of the British Empire, thereby turning it into a "Pound block of equals" of sorts.
2) dump the disaster created by their own Policy of Balance of Power:
That pitted GB/Empire against the strongest continental power/alliance/country as a default setting.
Aww.
Too bad.
Like your "London lords" who once stiff-upper-lipped their way over the proverbial "lemming cliff", you are simply too proud and arrogant to accept the reasons your pathetic "Empire" faded away in less than a lifetime.
From the unmistakable nr.1 at the turn of the century (around 1900), down to "merely on par" with your "new best fwiends" (lol) the USA, down to "third fiddle" in the Cold War...
All "engineered" by The American Century, using the same political/financial/policy "tools" (because after 1900 geography slowly began giving Washington DC the leverage/advantage), that London once used when London had the geographical advantage (during the 19th and early-20th century)...
Sorry :-)
LOL. No, not really...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course she is ...ahem ..."popular."
She is a great divider of Europeans.
"Divide and rule, the politician cries; Unite and lead, is watchword of the wise." ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
The minute some or other leaders in Europe step forward to unite people over regionally, and start speaking of concepts like the "common European home," the dividers will immediately work on their own counter strategies (see the Clinton admin in the 1990s).
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Regardless of the "system of gain" in question, which come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
Divide and rule/conquer creates "favorite sons" (Ukraine) on the one side, and "scapegoats" on the other as "default rivals/enemies" (Russia).
Divide and rule creates dangerous precedents, and lays potentially self-destructive foundations, and Africa and Asia should learn from European mistakes, and never say "never."
"The rich ruling class has used tribalism, a primitive caveman instinct, to their advantage since the beginning of time. They use it to divide and conquer us. They drive wedges between us peasants and make us fight each other, so we won’t rise up against our rulers and fight them. You can observe the same old trick everywhere in America today... That doesn’t just happen all by itself. There are always voices instigating these fights." ― Oliver Markus Malloy
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. Today, this has transformed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBERALS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. This branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Brits thought they were sooooo clever and make a "pig's breakfast" out of Europe, as they always did as a matter of policy.
"Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
James Hacker : That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister [rolls eyes and laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister.
No "satire" there at all.
Not "funny comedy" at all if one ends up as a "tool" of London's little divide and rule schemes.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists...
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States),.
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Ask the affected millions what they wanted for themselves? Nah. That was below the lords...
So in 1939 Stalin and Hitler came along and made "a pig's breakfast" of the London lord's little scheme for their "divided continent" (see Secret protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact).
The lords wanted to play divide and rule with the continent's inhabitants indefinitely, for own gain, and in the end the UK became a tool of Washington DC, and they lost their Empire. Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945 and a subsequent few years.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was reduced to the status of "a scrap of paper". Awww. Sad. No nukes for the "special relationship" best fwiends 😅😆😁
Subsequently Washington DC used British weakness and made a pig's breakfast out of British markets (economic warfare), and re-divided the world into "east and west".
Didn't anybody notice?
The world went from a divided continent, to suit the expansion/protection of the British Empire/London, to a divided world, to suit the expansionprotection of The American Century/Washington DC.
1
-
Start pulling the rug from underneath their feet...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same people and systems. Different times. Same games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ASIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside systems can "surf in and skim off the profits of division". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS OR PERSONAL PRIORITIES
Most European people are far too daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive them too, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that they end up thinking everything they do is justified, with "only a few exceptions" in order to seem fair...
Has your nation, or a leader already been "chosen as a favorite son of the West"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have with neighbors aside, or settle them fast peacefully, and don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme. Actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples across all borders.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these Western "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU today, for the gain of the outside Western Powers, just like divide and rule sacrificed your grandparents and previous Asian generations during the Era of Imperialism...
------------------------
P.S.: I cannot personally post this message myself too often, since YT autoblocks it as "spam" if I copy and paste it under videos too often. I need YOUR help. In your own interest of safety, please spread this message with regards to the age-old "divide and rule"-strategy of outside (non-Asian) powers. Thank You.
1
-
1
-
GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs.
Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent.
Of course, London already knew this.
That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem:
Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900).
And so "poor little Belgium" was born.
Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"...
France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war.
The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about-turn Jedi mind-control trick on weak minds :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first.
Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals.
It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up.
Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights".
It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why are Americans surpized by any of these data points?
Because...first they came for the mom-and-pop stores, but Americans did nothing, cos' they didn't have a mom-and-pop store themselves..."
Then they came for engineers, real-estate agents, and so on, and so on, and so on.
Finally, they will come for YOU, whatever you do, and there will be no-one to speak for YOUR profession or job. Then you will "own nothing," just like they already told you.
1
-
"Military enterprises are the most effective means of keeping a people occupied, for nothing arouses their interest so much as an important war….Everyone who is able is ready to play his part either in council or in action, and all discontent is vented on the common enemy. The rest of the people either follow the camp to bring supplies, and to perform other necessary services, or remain at home to offer prayers and vows to God for ultimate victory; or, at least are so stirred by expectation and by news of the progress of the war that there is no place for thoughts of revolt in their minds. In thought or in deed, everyone is pre-occupied by the war." — Giovanni Botero
4 Horsemen of history:
- War (by paid stooges)
- Conquest (by proxy)
- Famine (far away)
- De@th (apologized for by those in search of gain)
According to Richard Overy all wars have as their basis four core objectives. Resources, belief (incl. ideology), pursuit of power, security issues, or combinations of these, or in combination with various other minor considerations.
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The current marching route of the empire, for the current recent and relevant past (aka "living history" as being a generation or two) which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching and marching, and morphing and morphing, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
They implement the divide-and-rule technique of power.
Sow division, reap gains.
Those "horsemen" (strategists) who sow, do not care what follows in their wake.
1
-
A lot of ancillary and totally irrelavant details.
It was a London policy which made the strongest continental power the default "rival in peace", and the default "enemy in war".
London had 2 chances to correct their faulty reasoning.
One with Wilhelm II, roughly until 1900, until German leaders lost their patience trying to get a mutually beneficial treaty with London.
The 2nd chance, after WW1, while Germany was a democracy.
They blew both chances, and would subsequently lose their Empire.
Because roughly in parallel to Germany on the continent across the English Channel, there was another "new power" rising across the Atlantic, whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”
It was the USA.
Or "maybe they (Europe) won't notice if we sneak up on them..."
The American Century advocates in Washington DC were very good at "biding time" until they were strong enough to eclipse "the old", and not to care anymore.
With the "leverage" geography gave them (distance from squabbling Europeans), plus a drastically increasing power, as technology shrunk the world, they knew they would just have to wait long enough until the eternally squabbling Europeans had torn themselves to shreds.
Because in the arsenals of M-A-I-N there was another "weapon".
Well-known at the time, and formulated into words by John Quincy Adams: "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country: One is by sword and one is by debt."
Note: it was "a plan" of sorts.
Wait.
Simply wait.
Washington DC/The American Century: "Let's see what happens. Never let a crisis or war go to waste."
Washington DC: If your rivals are making a mistake, don't interrupt them...
The main big difference?
While London afronted/confronted the strongest continental power/alliance which was Germany and the Dual Alliance at the time, as a matter of policy, the USA made the strongest power/alliance the "temporary friend" during crises and wars, only to overpower it commercially/economically/financially after WW2 was over."
Smart.
Kaiser Bill wished for "a place in the sun" (i.e. "markets", and "spheres of influence").
IMHO they should've just given him one, without the push-back.
It was greed and the control-freak instincts of "old empires", jealously guarding their own.
What unfolded after that, was basically a bed Europe had made for themselves, and with WW1, Versailles (and others like Saint-Germaine, or Trianon) and WW2, had to sleep in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rm-gh1co OK.
Those who wish to replace the 2nd Amendment are obviously wrong.
We have no arguments there.
It is about justifiable regulation (for example strict background checks)
For the most part, objections against a right to bear any kind of arm refers to necessary means to protect oneself against potentially (plausibility) possible harm from either crooks/criminals (1) or government (2).
As for nr 1, a person would need to create scenarios which can actually happen, and the likelihood of being prepared for it.
I know about the "gang of crooks home invasion" scenario, which is extremely rare. In fact, I'm not aware of a single "home invasion" scenario which cannot be more safely and quicker be countered by a simple panic room
Enter, close door, press panic button.
Even a "Kevin home alone" could have done that :-)
Fact is for 90% of urbanites, this is a far better alternative than AR-15s, UZIs, and rapid firing shotguns...
[of course it's a different scenario for rural areas]
Here's the problems you must address in a counter argument:
- which % of people are willing to spend 4-5 hours a week training
- which % of average folks have the ability to effectively use arms (note, 50% are kids)
- what about the 8 to 10 hours the typical "defenders" (adults) of a house are working
- will you be as "ready" as the attacker (round clambering, sitting in waiting, expecting an attack 24/7 and 365 days a week, for 50 years without a break....)
Like I said, for most people a panic room is safer (kids in the house) and easier (even a 5-year old can use it).
I assume you live in a rural area.
As for 2, or "evil government".
Here I think laws and education go a longer way than pure firepower.
(Bear in mind, that at Ruby Ridge the "evil government" FBI was defeated in court, but "won" on the battlefield, because of firepower. In other words, they killed because they could, and were evil, but it was a court and not another gun which put them back in line).
An "evil government" will always win on the battlefield, because of new technology.
Again, you must find a counter argument to the following problems
- evil government will have helicopter gunship and drones
- evil government would dominate the media (propaganda tool)
- evil government will have better trained operators
- evil government will have better technology (embedded soldiers, robots, soon there will be radar which can see through walls)
The truth is that if you resist, 90% of your fellow citizens will watch it on TV, after being told that you are a terrorist. Fabricated evidence will be presented, so that 90% (incl. the gun owners you are counting on to help you out) will see you as the criminal, irrelevant of the truth.
Unfortunately, that is the reality.
The only way around that is well educated (not only well-armed) and smart citizenship, police, military, etc. which is more likely to see through lies and deceit of the few.
The equation 300 000 000 private guns against "evil government" is wrong, because in reality 200 000 000 of those guns don't know (ignorant), don't care (indifferent) or are too lazy (complacency).
Without savvy, a big chunk of the other 100 000 000 will actually join evil government to smoke you out, because you are "the crook/commie/ child murderer", or whatever they dish up on TV...
1
-
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@petergagan707 Don't believe me?
EPISODE V:
A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised.
"Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
A massive strategic air force, was a form of warfare GB could not really afford.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most important markets.
Washington DC/American Century: "Sowwie...I didden know that "markets" and "trade" were the cornerstone of your empiwe...je, je, je...sowwie..."*
1
-
1
-
Constraints. The AVOID crowd.
The REAL aim is China.
Russia, eventually "carved up" into smaller pieces and turned into future minions, is simply the means to an end.
Korea, Vietnam, Ukraine...
Will the little minions ("buck catchers" in strategy) ever learn?
Those who eagerly "carve up" others, even along arbitrary human-made boundaries on a map, dividing individuals, organisations, families, and businesses, are unlikely to agree with being "carved up" by someone else.
Korea was divided by imperialists during World War II (with the cooperation of the imperialist Allied camp) without consulting the local population about their priorities.
A few years later, they attempted the same in Vietnam, using the ongoing war of independence as a pretext (marketed as "the USA saving the world from communism"). This effort was unsuccessful.
The true objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China
According to Wikipedia: "Main article: China containment policy. As articulated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-term strategic initiative to encircle Beijing with the USSR and its satellite states, as well as: The Japan–Korea front, The India–Pakistan front, and The Southeast Asia front. Although President Johnson claimed that the goal of the Vietnam War was to ensure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a memorandum from January 1965 by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton indicated that an underlying justification was "not to assist a friend, but to contain China". On November 3, 1965, Secretary of Defense McNamara sent a memorandum to Johnson, outlining "major policy decisions regarding our course of action in Vietnam". The memorandum begins by revealing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965: 'The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they support a long-term United States policy to contain China. McNamara accused China of having imperial ambitions similar to those of the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States: 'China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30s, and like the USSR in 1947—emerges as a significant power threatening to undermine our importance and effectiveness globally and, more distantly but more ominously, to unite all of Asia against us.'
Note that this is a common tactic in international relations: accuse the "other side" of actions that one is undertaking oneself. The strategy of divide-and-rule is kept hidden, while the opposing side is accused of having malicious intentions, without providing any actual evidence (the concept of "accusation without proof"). To encircle China, the United States aimed to establish "three fronts" as part of a "long-term effort to contain China": 'There are three fronts to a long-term effort to contain China (recognising that the USSR "contains" China to the north and northwest): (a) the Japan–Korea front; (b) the India–Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.'
Later, McNamara acknowledged that containing China would ultimately cost America a considerable amount of time, money, and lives. As is often the case, "extending" a rising rival power incurs "expenses", including lives, which is why the intention is to create proxies in artificial entities like "South Vietnam" to carry out such containment for the dominant power.
This is divide-and-rule.
Favouritism, or the "paid/supported proxy", can be employed during peacetime to undermine rivals or wage subversive warfare, or during wartime to reduce costs and losses while gaining systemic advantages after a "victory". When a proxy fails to achieve this "extension of the rival", it is quickly abandoned or discarded to cut the "investment", and a new proxy is sought. This pattern was evident in the 1930s: in 1939, the "first proxy" identified was Poland, and when Poland failed to "extend Germany" for a prolonged period, it was decided to provoke either Germany or the USSR to invade Scandinavia (Plan R4). Ideally, both Germany and the SU would invade Scandinavia, leading to a potential clash there, distracting attacks away from the heartlands. While Great Britain and France still cooperated, this was straightforward: both would benefit if the war "pivoted away" from Western Europe/British Isles into Scandinavia. If the attention could be focused somewhere else on the map, a Battle of Britain and a Battle of France could potentially be avoided, if the Germans became bogged down in Scandinavia for example...
That did not occur.
However.
Align with such individuals at your own risk.
They do not adhere to the Christian values they consistently boast as being "oh-so-superior" and worthy of admiration...
North Korea/South Korea (implemented "unsinkable aircraft carrier").
North Vietnam/South Vietnam (intention/failure).
East Ukraine/West Ukraine (in progress).
Always the same playbook.
The modus operandi has been consistent since 1776: advancing onto another power's borders (systematically), also through proxies, then blaming those who are encroached upon/encircled if they react, or blaming the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War advance began in the 1990s, so even if the Trump administration did not initiate the "marching order", it is a fact that he did not halt it either when he had the chance during his first term (2017-2021). This can be examined as empirical evidence (observation/map) which clarifies who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should avoid engaging with debaters who base their theories on ideology or emotions, especially not if the advocate reveals themselves as dogmatic, prone to logical fallacies or cognitive biases. Such individuals are not interested in outcomes but wish to make "debates" go in circles indefinitely, obfuscating, side-lining, and finger-pointing to evade the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current trajectory of the empire, which began when the USSR faced economic decline in the late 1980s, with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the advance)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the advance)
Continuously advance, trampling over one red line after another, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). If anything negative occurs, and lives are lost, always blame someone else. This type of imperialist behaviour, as demonstrated by Washington DC and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not begin solely after World War II. This marching order has been in place since 1776, with the first victims being neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territories were coveted. That was followed by Spain in the 1890s (put into action in 1898) whose desirable territories would create a link between the USA and East Asia.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries so that any economic surplus generated by that country is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US government, and especially to US bondholders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It remains the same today as it has since 1776.
The reality is that neither Trump nor any previous administration has halted this (systemic) "slow march" of systemic expansion, whilst getting the "buck catcher" to pick up the tab if things don't turn out as strategized.
Be cautious of the ideologically indoctrinated: Like a child, they confidently repeat things they do not know to be true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Against the common held belief, the "Muslims" did not steal the land from Jews.
That is a popular myth, spread by the propaganda machine of Israel, and by Zionists.
The reality is that the Jews were chased out of their holy land in 3 waves, the last wave by Italians (Romans) about 2000 years ago. For more than a 1,000 years, Christian invaders (Byzantine Empire) captured the Levant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire
The Ottoman Empire defeated the Byzantine Empire, and then dominated the region for around 500 years, until they were in turn defeated during WW1.
Therefore, the erroneous belief that "Muslims" stole the land is incorrect.
During the reign of the Ottomans, the population stayed more or less the same, but many converted to Islam because it had obvious advantages (taxation, business, etc.).
The Muslims did not "steal" anything.
They are for the most part the descendants of people who had lived there for generations.
For most of history, the rulers were foreigners (upper classes), but the local population (the simple people) remained more or less the same people (Semites). Of course, there was some immigration, meaning that the Levant, like the Lebanon, had always been a region of mixed ethnicity, religions, and cultures.
Here you can see a graph of the demographics of the Levant for the last 2000 years or so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most people can be deceived.
ideology
Source: Dictionary
noun
1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of democracy"
Similar: beliefs, ideas, ideals
This "box" called "TV" billions bow down to, has got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives in sinecure comfort...
Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders who appear to them in these "boxes". The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) to kill for, is democracy in colusion with corporatism, and the slogan they chant is "Make the world safe for democracy".
Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders constantly lie and call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One ideal, must be wrong.
When one criticizes an ideologue's ideology, they expose their true nature.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Too many US/collective Western citizens are still imperialists, with imperialist programming:
It works by manipulation, to distort perceptions.
The most common MSM/MIMAC mind tricks.
The most common cognitive biases which have slipped into the "history" known as popular- or narrative history, or have even reached the status as "beyond question" because too many believe it is "true", are:
- Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the majority, or appeal to the masses, or the argument from consensus in which the "consensus" has a HOME BASE advantage)
- Genetic fallacy (discounting a theory that sounds unnatural based on its source, creating the "I need more evidence"-crowd who ALWAYS "need more evidence" regardless of any amount of evidence already provided, and who can simply not see where they fit into the DIVIDE ET IMPERA-setup of the planet)
- Ipse dixit (aka "because I said so myself" it must be true)
- Cherry picking data (thereby suppressing all evidence which contradicts the own convictions, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence)
- Group attribution error (assuming that the individual represents entire groups with similar attributes like culture, language, ethnicity, etc.)
- Invincible ignorance fallacy (aka pig-headedness, is a deductive fallacy of circularity by ignoring any evidence given and related to the concept of "dogma")
- Hostile attribution bias (is the tendency to interpret others' behaviours as having hostile intent, even when the behaviour is ambiguous or benign. For example, an empire with high levels of hostile attribution bias may interpret intentions to "balance powers" as agreed upon by common consensus, or as the "pre-selected others/outgroup (with finger pointing) trying to rule the world"-narrative)
- Implicit stereotype (pre-reflective attribution of particular qualities of out group members)
- Reactive devaluation (occurs when a proposal is devalued if it originates from an antagonist, resulting in "arguing for the sake of arguing")
- Correlation does not imply causation (events which occur concurrently or in sequence, are not necessarily the result of each other)
- Dysrationalia (fill up the "mindware gap" with fallacious reasoning or cognitive biases, and even intelligent people end up as "losers")
- Madman theory ("play" crazy as a scare tactic. Wilhelm II or Hitler were most likely not more sociopathic and/or psychopathic than many or our own leaders in positions of power, but simply "played" the role as deterrence)
- Emotive conjugation (a rhetorical technique used to create an intrinsic bias towards or against a piece of information. Bias is created by using the emotional connotation of a word to prime a response from the audience by creating a loaded statement. Examples are the use of "freedom fighter" for a favoured cause, and "terrorist" for a cause opposing the own)
Finally, the Law of Triviality (Northcote Parkinson, 1957) states that people within an ingroup often give disproportionate weight to trivial issues (like whether "Hitler had one ball"), meaning that time is wasted on trivialities which distracts from what is really important, or indicative. When you waste time on trivialities ... "you become what you give your attention to." (to quote Epictetus)
The above is all partially copied from wiki, then edited, so a shoutout to the original editors and authors.
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, it was quite easy solve.
What lacked was willpower.
As the definition "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
1
-
1
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. Today, this has transformed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBERALS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. This branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For the British Empire, commencing roughly the year 1900, every "victory" was in fact a nail in the own coffin.
The following essay will explain how first London, and then Washington DC used mainly divide and rule/conquer strategies at key watershed moments throughout history in order to effect world domination, mainly facilitated by a geographical advantage. Unlike conventional wisdom suggests, such policies were not only implemented in overseas territories and colonies, but were indeed also used against the continental European powers, within the limitations of the power balance at any given time in history. In order to first become and then later stay the world hegemon, distance coupled with a financial and technological edge, were converted into political means (policies) by London power players. Up to the early-20th century, these realities gave London that slight edge over their continental rivals which were already divided due to a variety of reasons. As time progressed and war ravaged Europe in the first half of the 20th century, technology advanced further, so that the geographical advantage once enjoyed by London, passed over to the USA and Washington DC's power players. After World War 2 the multipolar world up to the 19th century turned bipolar, then unipolar as the Cold War ended or the systems morphed.
Historically, European conflicts between systems based on structurally similar dynasties, turned into a struggle between ideologically different systems. Rather than the previous limited wars up to the early-20th century, wars then became total. The different systems tended to strive to overpower, marginalize, integrate or destroy other conflicting systems if symbioses was not possible. The key to success here, and the novelty of the theory presented, was that the core means employed were strategies resembling divide and rule/conquer. The systems which had the geographical advantage, either allied with, beguiled, befriended or otherwise favored other systems if useful for own gain. What set these loose alliances of friendships or ententes apart from other systems which also united, was a lack of obligation to react in any specific way during times of crises or wars. The distinct advantage of geography being that those with such a competitive advantage would not have to fear an existencial threat to the own systems and could be more bold in international relations, or delaying actions in crises or wars until a favorable point on the timeline, based on the technological standpoint humanity had reached at the point in time.
Such divide and rule strategies were in fact standing London policies, disguised by careful use of language in policies. Since the logic of balanced powers to avoid great wars was widely accepted within the framework of the Concert of Europe, no other capital city seemed to have noticed or objected. Rather than aiding relative peace, which persisted in most of Europe for around a century after 1815, London's policy standpoint as sole "balancer of powers", resulted in an ever greater risk of a total war of the systems. At the core of Europe, these older continental European systems grew in extent and power in the leadup to 1914, under constant stress in efforts to balance power due to the fact that land borders resulted in more exposure to danger from a neighboring system: placing continental powers in a situation of a relative geographical disadvantage while engaging in crises or wars. While London could always find a power to temporarily ally with on the continent, the reverse was not possible (on Britain), because the UK had achieved an early unification process. The "decider" would always be London. Continental powers therefore faced the geographically disadvantageous locations with regards to expansive aims. This was directly opposed to faraway systems which had the geographical advantage of distance from this core of the Old World. Few seemed to have noticed the potential for MAD as time passed. Due to her geographical advantage, and at London's sole discretion, the "balancer" London stood aloof. The technological standpoint at the time meant she was detached from all danger to the own heartland which was England. A role which was guarded by the Royal Navy. London was the "sole divider and sole decider of wars". That eventually lead to the unintentional end of European world rule and domination, including their own. It was a careful use of language which meant that most of the above did not need to be kept hidden, but the words used indeed reveal a standing policy of "divide et impera". In fact, most of it happened out in the open, in newspaper articles, treaties, conferences, political summits, etc. and for all current witnesses to observe and study because just like today, it is possible to drive multiple policies in parallel. Most observers simply did not recognize the events for what they were, or they noticed and considered the status quo as a meritocracy or a well-deserved own right, or they did not pay attention. Distinct systems with many similarities and many differences employing strategies as a way to achieve greater gain for the own system.
The theory comes in two parts, that of 1) divide and rule, in which case the dividing power is actually in a position to exploit an imbalance in power, to impose a ruling on another side by ensuring the continued rift between opposing systems, and the more common 2) divide and gain, where the power intent on creating an advantage for its own system, has to suffice with splitting potential unity in the making apart, but lacks sufficient power to impose a ruling.
Divide and rule/conquer is revealed by events.
Unlike human beings, events don't lie, steal, or kill.
Unlike human beings, events which are proven to have happened, and are not disputed to have occured, do not deceive, manipulate, or "tweak" the own perceived "truths" in order to generate positive feelings in a flurry of "99% ancillary details", which then distorts vision...
1
-
@SiliconCurtain The side pushing the last 30 years is clear in any objective analyses, as the USA. It started even as the SU was dissolving in the early 1990s, and clearly weak (economic throes of the early-/mid-1990s). Stating that it was Russia "pushing" their empire, would be skewing the timeline.
It is an observation in psychology that psychopaths and bullies are very clever and manipulative in their ways, and usually try to blame shift (the biblical "pointing fingers"). This is described in detail in the below comment, which you did not reply to.
Mirriam-Webster defines brute force as
.. "relying on or achieved through the application of force, effort, or power in usually large amounts instead of more efficient, carefully planned, or precisely directed methods."
All empires used and use brute force, in case one strictly sticks to the definition of the words you've chosen to describe Russia.
Or how would you describe the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PragerU is not telling the whole story.
They are using a propaganda method called "lying by omitting".
Here is what happened, and the timeline is important.
It is Miss Chow who "started it" by wanting to restrict fellow Americans' unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and happiness" and trying to impose her own convictions onto others .
Trying to restrict another American's rights, not based on a factual argument (say, restricting gun rights because of the many deaths), but using one's own "feelings" is un-American.
That means not understanding basic rights , as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
She didn't choose for herself.
She made a political decision (simulated of course) that impacted others and that goes against the spirit it of separation of church and state as desired by the founding fathers.
She did not only "abstain", which is her right to do.
She hid behind her Bible, stating that is what made her choose the way she did. Obviously, it is her own convictions, but she blames her "god"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equillibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equillibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequillibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
Because you are an idiot in a world full of idiots, involving yourself in wars of proxy once created by the USA and GB.
First in 1979, when Reagan supported the radical Islamic Mujahedden (which morphed into Al Queda, Taliban and then ISIS). Then with an absolutely stupid war for oil in 2003, which catapulted ISIS into power...again, by guess who?
Yup. Constant meddling in the affairs of others, for own interests, creating war and terror, creating more war and terror, and circling round and round to more war and terror...
Oh, and BTW. Did I mention than constant meddling for interests creates war and terror?
1
-
1
-
First off...congratulations, for at least a writing a comment that can be considered a counter argument to Hasan's core message.
[unlike 99% of the ones on this video]
But US policy was not about "helping Afghanistan", but rather using the Afghan people as tools of divide and rule.
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
The Soviet invasion in 1979 (in reality Soviet meddling in an Afghan civil war which started in 1978) was in fact the dying throes of a dying empire, and the fact that the SU invaded, a sign that it was doomed to fail soon anyway
Arming ...ahem..."Sharia law loving fundamental Islamists" was the worst policy, because they hated America (and the west) too.
The popular slogan "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is bs, because once your common enemy is gone, you are still left with an enemy.
If you wish, we can discuss what better policies there were to follow, but let's first establish that arming terrorists was the wrong thing to do, and therefore shortsighted and stupid.
1
-
bootlicker - Dictionary Definition
n someone who humbles himself as a sign of respect; who behaves as if he had no self-respect. Synonyms: apple polisher, fawner, groveler, groveller, truckler Type of: ass-kisser, crawler, lackey, sycophant, toady. a person who tries to please someone in order to gain a personal advantage.
At least get your insults right.
I agree with Hasan on his core argument because it is logically and within reason, and therefore objectively correct, not because there's something "in it" for me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matsjonsson9492 "Robert F. Kennedy:
"To understand this dynamic, we need to look at history from the Syrians’ perspective and particularly the seeds of the current conflict. Long before our 2003 occupation of Iraq triggered the Sunni uprising that has now morphed into the Islamic State, the CIA had nurtured violent jihadism as a Cold War weapon and freighted U.S./Syrian relationships with toxic baggage.
This did not happen without controversy at home. In July 1957, following a failed coup in Syria by the CIA, my uncle, Sen. John F. Kennedy, infuriated the Eisenhower White House, the leaders of both political parties and our European allies with a milestone speech endorsing the right of self-governance in the Arab world and an end to America’s imperialist meddling in Arab countries. Throughout my lifetime, and particularly during my frequent travels to the Mideast, countless Arabs have fondly recalled that speech to me as the clearest statement of the idealism they expected from the U.S. Kennedy’s speech was a call for recommitting America to the high values our country had championed in the Atlantic Charter; the formal pledge that all the former European colonies would have the right to self-determination following World War II. Franklin D. Roosevelt had strong-armed Winston Churchill and the other allied leaders to sign the Atlantic Charter in 1941 as a precondition for U.S. support in the European war against fascism.
But thanks in large part to Allen Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, sat on a secret committee charged with investigating the CIA’s clandestine mischief in the Mideast. The so called “Bruce-Lovett Report,” to which he was a signatory, described CIA coup plots in Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt, all common knowledge on the Arab street, but virtually unknown to the American people who believed, at face value, their government’s denials. The report blamed the CIA for the rampant anti-Americanism that was then mysteriously taking root “in the many countries in the world today.” The Bruce-Lovett Report pointed out that such interventions were antithetical to American values and had compromised America’s international leadership and moral authority without the knowledge of the American people. The report also said that the CIA never considered how we would treat such interventions if some foreign government were to engineer them in our country.
This is the bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mideast nationalists “hate us for our freedoms.” For the most part they don’t; instead they hate us for the way we betrayed those freedoms—our own ideals—within their borders."
Americans create their own enemies.
Nobody from Azerbaijan or Indonesia flew into US buildings.
There will soon, if continued failed policies causes terrorists to unite.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
@tinaforbes1059 Yes.
Ever since 1776, and as policy since 1898 ("start" of US international imperialism).
The following essay will explain how first London, and then Washington DC used mainly divide and rule/conquer strategies at key watershed moments throughout history in order to effect world domination, mainly facilitated by a geographical advantage. Unlike conventional wisdom suggests, such policies were not only implemented in overseas territories and colonies, but were indeed also used against the continental European powers, within the limitations of the power balance at any given time in history. In order to first become and then later stay the world hegemon, distance coupled with a financial and technological edge, were converted into political means (policies) by London power players. Up to the early-20th century, these realities gave London that slight edge over their continental rivals which were already divided due to a variety of reasons. As time progressed and war ravaged Europe in the first half of the 20th century, technology advanced further, so that the geographical advantage once enjoyed by London, passed over to the USA and Washington DC's power players. After World War 2 the multipolar world up to the 19th century turned bipolar, then unipolar as the Cold War ended or the systems morphed.
Historically, European conflicts between systems based on structurally similar dynasties, turned into a struggle between ideologically different systems. Rather than the previous limited wars up to the early-20th century, wars then became total. The different systems tended to strive to overpower, marginalize, integrate or destroy other conflicting systems if symbioses was not possible. The key to success here, and the novelty of the theory presented, was that the core means employed were strategies resembling divide and rule/conquer. The systems which had the geographical advantage, either allied with, beguiled, befriended or otherwise favored other systems if useful for own gain. What set these loose alliances of friendships or ententes apart from other systems which also united, was a lack of obligation to react in any specific way during times of crises or wars. The distinct advantage of geography being that those with such a competitive advantage would not have to fear an existencial threat to the own systems and could be more bold in international relations, or delaying actions in crises or wars until a favorable point on the timeline, based on the technological standpoint humanity had reached at the point in time.
Such divide and rule strategies were in fact standing London policies, disguised by careful use of language in policies. Since the logic of balanced powers to avoid great wars was widely accepted within the framework of the Concert of Europe, no other capital city seemed to have noticed or objected. Rather than aiding relative peace, which persisted in most of Europe for around a century after 1815, London's policy standpoint as sole "balancer of powers", resulted in an ever greater risk of a total war of the systems. At the core of Europe, these older continental European systems grew in extent and power in the leadup to 1914, under constant stress in efforts to balance power due to the fact that land borders resulted in more exposure to danger from a neighboring system: placing continental powers in a situation of a relative geographical disadvantage while engaging in crises or wars. While London could always find a power to temporarily ally with on the continent, the reverse was not possible (on Britain), because the UK had achieved an early unification process. The "decider" would always be London. Continental powers therefore faced the geographically disadvantageous locations with regards to expansive aims. This was directly opposed to faraway systems which had the geographical advantage of distance from this core of the Old World. Few seemed to have noticed the potential for MAD as time passed. Due to her geographical advantage, and at London's sole discretion, the "balancer" London stood aloof. The technological standpoint at the time meant she was detached from all danger to the own heartland which was England. A role which was guarded by the Royal Navy. London was the "sole divider and sole decider of wars". That eventually lead to the unintentional end of European world rule and domination, including their own. It was a careful use of language which meant that most of the above did not need to be kept hidden, but the words used indeed reveal a standing policy of "divide et impera". In fact, most of it happened out in the open, in newspaper articles, treaties, conferences, political summits, etc. and for all current witnesses to observe and study because just like today, it is possible to drive multiple policies in parallel. Most observers simply did not recognize the events for what they were, or they noticed and considered the status quo as a meritocracy or a well-deserved own right, or they did not pay attention. Distinct systems with many similarities and many differences employing strategies as a way to achieve greater gain for the own system.
The theory comes in two parts, that of 1) divide and rule, in which case the dividing power is actually in a position to exploit an imbalance in power, to impose a ruling on another side by ensuring the continued rift between opposing systems, and the more common 2) divide and gain, where the power intent on creating an advantage for its own system, has to suffice with splitting potential unity in the making apart, but lacks sufficient power to impose a ruling.
Divide and rule/conquer is revealed by events.
Unlike human beings, events don't lie, steal, or kill.
Unlike human beings, events which are proven to have happened, and are not disputed to have occured, do not deceive, manipulate, or "tweak" the own perceived "truths" in order to generate positive feelings in a flurry of "99% ancillary details", which then distorts vision...
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BRITISHFURY_1664 London (as the alpha) could have avoided all of that around 1900.
States have a means to increase their "power" and leverage in deals by alliances.
London even came up with the correct answer themselves and debated it...
"Another factor in favor an alliance between the two nations [Germany and GB] was the power and protection it would afford both. In 1898, Conservative member of the House of Commons Sir E. AshmeadBartlett argued that William II had saved the British Empire by increasing his influence in Turkey, thereby checking the Russians, who had long been seen as a grave threat to British India.204 He declared “I hold we cannot resecure our proper position, our strong and invincible position, among the nations of the world which we held in 1878, and from 1886 to 1892, until we return to the natural alliance with Germany.”205 Then in 1900, Sir Ashmead-Bartlett remarked that “The Concert of Europe… is impossible. It cannot exist. You cannot have a real Concert between Powers … whose interests are diverse,” and that “If you substitute for that Concert a real alliance or understanding with Germany,… then; you have an alliance with the dominant force not only in the East, but elsewhere, and you can practically impose your policy on China.”206 William II would surely have agreed to an alliance on the basis of the power it would grant both nations, not just militarily but economically, because it would virtually ensure the protection of his colonial empire and its trade. William II also desired an alliance with Britain which would serve as the basis of a “United States of Europe,” which would counter the growing economic might of the United States.207 Britain’s economic empire was also threatened by America’s rise, so they surely would have been open to an alliance with Germany to maintain 47 their economic dominance."
(quoted from "Mad as March Hares:" Kaiser Wilhelm II, Great Britain, and the Road to War Jeffrey Kelly" page 47/48)
Available for download as pdf-file.
A great balanced thesis.
Unfortunately, the powers which wanted to "rule by division" were stronger.
1
-
1
-
1
-
How history rhymes...
Meanwhile, after more than two years Boris Johnson has admitted that the war in the Ukraine is a proxy war for US/collective Western interests, and Vladimir Zelensky has stated that "there are those in the West who don't mind a long war [in Ukraine]" to extend Russia, using his peoples as tools for the gain of outsiders who drool over the profits (Mitch McConnell), or lust after the systemic expansion possible as result of great upheavals amongst human beings. Does this take the wind out of the sails of the "paid Putin puppet"-screamers, blindly chanting their MSM narratives against those who have said this from day 1? Not at all. In order to fit their world views, these tools will deny reality, rattle down the narrative to a point of making total fools of themselves. They would now have to believe that Boris Johnson, or Vladimir Zelensky are "paid Putin puppets", in order to square a circle...
This is exactly what is meant with fools arguing their way into the trenches their own leaders have deceived them into.
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
Never mind how faraway they march from the own homelands, they will only be "defending themselves" or the "friends" they have made on their marching routes...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@uncannyzee7391 Yes, Jason is correct.
Yes, Hasan is also correct.
Even the Bible said "reap what you sow".
The west started meddling directly following WW1 in 1919, invading, playing divide and rule, drawing lines on the map, destabilizing, and imposed mass immigration of Europeans on them ....
First GB and France as the alpha male, later the USA joined in.
Not the other way around.
Oil, was the root cause of that western meddling. Greed...and some...
The birds let loose at the end of WW1, came home to roost.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PerceivedREALITY999 Yes, avoid the creation of a single power on your borders, which was Arab unity as proclaimed as desirable by Arab leaders a long time ago, and why those Arabs who joined GB during WW1 were "promised" a united Arab unity.
They were betrayed by promises, because the outsiders intented to fragment (Balfour/Sykes-Picot) the Arabian Pininsula, and it still is being fragmented by outsiders (USA, EU) or neighbors (Israel, Iran, Turkey).
It's divide-and-rule. The political root cause of all human suffering, because it comes before all else. The intention to rule by division, regardless of the costs.
Arabs made it easy for the dividers, since their tribal and religious factions made them easy prey.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
US Congressperson Dan Crenshaw (note his military background, therefore knowledge about strategies) recently stated re. the concept of "rather letting them fight over there" (a reference to the strategy of "the proxy"), after a 40 billion aid package to the Ukraine: “Yeah, because investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea. You should feel the same.” (in a "shame game" with Republicans via Twitter who voted against the aid package).
Yup.
A "great idea" (sic.) to "invest" in the blood of a 3rd party fighting in a war which would have been easy to avoid, and earn some "donations" along the way. What's there not to like?
One might think that this is "anecdotal", but as Napoleon said only the coward won't tell you what he thinks in your face. And there are a ton of cowards in the field of politics.
One might think whatever one wants about Dan Crenshaw, but at least he is honest.
If anybody ends up in a muddy trench, it's not his fault.
Of course, its never the fault of the "system" he's in called "world alpha" either, since it's a free world, and if you're stupid enough to end up in the "muddy trench" fighting so that men like him (or, his "buddies" in "the system") can rake in obscene profits in the rackets they will always vote against avoiding, it's not his issue.
He'll be in church on Sundays, praying the loudest, and he'll be on twitter on Monday, making fun of those not smart enough.
I assume, he'll have his "flock" of supporters, irrelevant of what he utters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@isaacazminov8733 Here is the reality.
The War on Drugs, costing taxpayers 50 billion dollars a year...
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
— John Ehrlichman, to Dan Baum[45][46][47] for Harper's Magazine[48] in 1994, about President Richard Nixon's war on drugs, declared in 1971.[49]
1
-
@isaacazminov8733 It's still going on.
Educate yourself.
"The war on drugs is a largely unsuccessful campaign,[6] led by the U.S. federal government, of drug prohibition, military aid, and military intervention, with the aim being the reduction of the illegal drug trade in the United States.[7][8][9][10]The initiative includes a set of drug policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs that the participating governments and the UN have made illegal. The term was popularized by the media shortly after a press conference given on June 18, 1971, by President Richard Nixon—the day after publication of a special message from President Nixon to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control—during which he declared drug abuse "public enemy number one". That message to the Congress included text about devoting more federal resources to the "prevention of new addicts, and the rehabilitation of those who are addicted", but that part did not receive the same public attention as the term "war on drugs".[11][12][13] However, two years prior to this, Nixon had formally declared a "war on drugs" that would be directed toward eradication, interdiction, and incarceration.[14] Today, the Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates for an end to the War on Drugs, estimates that the United States spends $51 billion annually on these initiatives.[15]"
[end of quote]
1
-
@isaacazminov8733 The War on Poverty is pointless if one hand destroys while the other tries to rebuild.
The girl was from Guatemala. One of the hardest hit by the War on Drugs...
Call off war on drugs, leader of Guatemala tells the west
Otto Pérez Molina says regulated narcotics market must be introduced to forestall threat to democracy from drug cartels
by Jamie Doward
Sat 19 Jan 2013 21.03 GMT
First published on Sat 19 Jan 2013
"The west's "war on drugs" has failed and continuing with prohibition will only cost more lives, the Guatemalan president, Otto Pérez Molina, declares in an interview in the Observer.
In a further sign that the global consensus on drugs is fragmenting, Pérez Molina will use a debate at this week's Davos forum in Switzerland to attack the international community for its support for prohibition, and to call for a regulated narcotics market.
"I believe western countries fail to understand the reality that countries such as Guatemala and those of Central America have to live in," said Pérez Molina. "There has been plenty of talk, but no effective response. I believe, ultimately, that this is due to a lack of understanding on the part of western countries."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@isaacazminov8733 "In 1986, the US Defense Department funded a two-year study by the RAND Corporation, which found that the use of the armed forces to interdict drugs coming into the United States would have little or no effect on cocaine traffic and might, in fact, raise the profits of cocaine cartels and manufacturers. The 175-page study, "Sealing the Borders: The Effects of Increased Military Participation in Drug Interdiction", was prepared by seven researchers, mathematicians and economists at the National Defense Research Institute, a branch of the RAND, and was released in 1988. The study noted that seven prior studies in the past nine years, including one by the Center for Naval Research and the Office of Technology Assessment, had come to similar conclusions. Interdiction efforts, using current armed forces resources, would have almost no effect on cocaine importation into the United States, the report concluded.
During the early-to-mid-1990s, the Clinton administration ordered and funded a major cocaine policy study, again by RAND. The Rand Drug Policy Research Center study concluded that $3 billion should be switched from federal and local law enforcement to treatment. The report said that treatment is the cheapest way to cut drug use, stating that drug treatment is twenty-three times more effective than the supply-side "war on drugs".[149
1
-
1
-
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative.
Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a "fact"? Because it actually happened. If an actual fair treaty had ended WW1 in 1919, there would not have been a "WW2" and none of that which followed in the wake of an unfair end, would have ever happened.
Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
After a short halt, the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an "IMbalance of powers" as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing.
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon.
This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul rescinded).
For the "divider," the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises...
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. The conflagration that took place after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War, with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy o divide-nd-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they "feel" better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Do unto others what you do not want done to you."
Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the "logic" of causality where there is a trench waiting for you...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why is anybody surprised that an empire keeps on voting for an imperialist? (see Footnote)
"If the USA gets a cold, the rest of the world gets the flu".
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Honestly, what more is there to say? USA: "If I get a cold, the rest of the world is going to suffer worse." This must be the most pathetic acknowledgement of subjection I've read my entire life. If your global neighbor gets an economic "cold" and you can't simply send them a get-well-soon-card and continue with your own life unaffected, you are already in an internationalist/globalist entanglement.
"When the USA votes, the rest of the world looks on in awe and anticipation".
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Honestly, what more is there to say? USA: "If Americans vote an imperialist into office, the rest of the world is going to have to deal with it." This must be the most pathetic acknowledgement of subjection I've read my entire life. If your global neighbor votes in an imperialist and a convicted slimeball into office, and you can't simply send them an "oh what a pity"-look on your face and continue with your own life unaffected, your safety assured because there is a GLOBAL BALANCE OF POWER, you are already in a globalist entanglement.
It was not difficult to predict, that an imperialist system in which the sane half of its population has little power to change anything, will vote another establishment billionaire slimeball into power...
-----------------------------------------
One of the most common counter-arguments to criticism of the American "forever wars" these past 250 years, is that "The USA isn't an empire, because it never sought territorial gain."
True, but one doesn't have to change any borders if one has already reached the top of the mountain, looking down at the minor powers one will play divide-and-rule with.
During the Era of European Imperialism, and carrying on seamlessly for the past 100 years or so, the world has been global Apartheid with a two-tier "us/them" system of everything: from concepts such as "wealth" to "justice" and "control", and with "gardens for a few" and "jungles" for the rest around the perimeter, and any deep changes can be vetoed by those who hold the true power. With the silent consent of the USA/collective West during the First Cold War (1947-1990), the REGIONAL HEGEMONY in South Africa was allowed to play their divide-and-rule games (aka "Apartheid") in a region of their world which was Southern Africa constituted as being South Africa, Rhodesia, Namibia (own sphere of direct/indirect influence) and the outer regions of Angola, Botswana, Zambia, or Mozambique, and that the borders need never change in order to play the "games" of divide-and-control/rule. It was CONTROL of their own borders, and control OVER the neighbors, which they sought. Notice that the borders never changed, but Apartheid/divide-and-rule flourished anyway. According to the same "logic" it should be fairly easy to brush away any criticism of the actions of the Apartheid state South Africa and its "forever wars" during the Apartheid era, with a flippant "The RSA never sought territorial gain." All historical European global empires, incl. the British Empire, were of course "Apartheid empires" since they had two/three tier systems as default settings and they had different sets of "rules" for "me and for thee" as rules-based ordering others around, and considered this state of affairs perfectly OK. Of course, imposing such "rules", paid off handsomely in the upkeep of the "gardens & pools". They practice divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, from their "gardens", as "my rules trump your weakness", just like South African systems of power did in Southern Africa, not only inside the own borders, but beyond.
Apart = separate = divide.
Divide the "jungles" in the rimlands, to keep the "gardens with pools" nice and luxurious...
Divide-and-control/rule.
Israel is another RSA, which plays the same games in its "rimlands" during the current Second Cold War, with the approval of the USA, just like SA did during the First Cold War from 1947 to 1990.
A globally operating HEGEMONY can likewise play the same divide-and-control/rule games everywhere on the globe and the borders need never change in order to play the "games". The previous HEGEMONS had the clout to practice divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, just like Washington DC systems of power did in the USA, not only inside the own borders, but beyond.
To play games, the borders need never change. All it needs is POWER, a set of rules for ordering everybody else around, and a position of impunity from any setbacks. The attitude is then that somebody else can pick up the tab. Today, our easily-deceived Western leaders in the self proclaimed "good West" (not strategists) tell us that there will be peace, as long as everybody adheres to the belief system that "the borders may never change". Everybody who changes the established borders is "evil" (unless of course, it is the own capital cities, or their proxies doing so: then it is "justified" by finger-pointing somewhere else). The own two-tier "us/them" system says so, so it must be "true."
...............................
FOOTNOTE:
Israel is a mini USA.
Should anybody dare to oppose the official "good side/bad side"-narrative of the rich sitting on their thrones of power in their "gardens", the disinformation playbook of the empire will strike back, and their MO will be predictable:
The Fake: Conduct counterfeit narrative and try to pass it off as legitimate research.
The Blitz: Harass those who speak out against the empire and its friends.
The Diversion: Manufacture uncertainty where little or none exists.
The Screen: Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies.
The Fix: Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy.
The technique is common in the systems of "capitalism/corporatism" and "democracy/globalism" and can be examined in meta studies. It's almost guaranteed that as soon as one reaches the "sensitive zones" of the empire and systems of gain, the MSM words flak will get real thick, and the apologist knee-jerk reactionary forces with their multi-million dollar/Euro/Pound imbursements will get really really triggered...
All systems of gain are systemically infested by self-serving and self-centred sociopaths and psychopaths of all kinds, who put interests and profit first, above all else.
Key words for further research:
1) 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
2) Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
3) The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
4) Dr Namie's research revealing the "Four Bully Types"
Simply copy/paste these key words into any search engine, which will offer a multitude of suggested further study.
1
-
1
-
1
-
At 22:05 mins
'...the smallest target the RAF could actually hit in 1942, was a town or a city...'
WRONG
They are using the facts of 1941 (basically, the Butt Report), to justify actions undertaken years after that, by which time the conclusions of the report had become largely outdated.
A few days after the Area Bombing Directive was issued in February 1942, the RAF carried out an attack on the Renault works in Billancourt, Paris. This attack was also carried out in the dead of night, but the factory was destroyed. This was achieved by simply changing the tactics. During this attack, experienced crews would be used as pathfinders, and the mass of rookies and average blokes would follow in a bomber stream. They only thing they would have to do is aim for the marked target area. The result was that the factory was completely destroyed.
http://ww2today.com/3rd-march-1942-the-rafs-largest-raid-so-far-on-paris
Still, today, historians don't mention this.
Why not?
This attack clearly shows that the target area was decided on by choice, not dictated by circumstances ( "the weather", "inexperienced crews", "bad navigation", and all those other excuses constantly dished up by our historians).
During this raid, it was the mainly the tactics which had changed. The crews no longer flew to the target individually, as they did pre-1942. Instead, expert pathfinders 'marked' the targets, and the rest simply bombed what had been marked.
Using the Paris attack as an example, Bomber Command should have 'area bombed' (note here, NOT to be confused with 'precision bombing') the German factories and yards. This was also suggested by the MEW during the war, but Churchill didn't value the advice of this group of economical warfare advisors. Sure, a lot of civilians would still have died, BUT a vital factory or yard would have stopped functioning, for weeks, months, or even (with a certain degree of luck) permanently.
Allied soldiers paid the price the folly of choosing city centers and 'enemy civilians' as the main target.
Allied soldiers died needlessly on the battlefields, killed by superior German weapons which should have been destroyed in the factories....
My advice?
Don't simply believe everything dished up to you by historians. Use your own head an think.?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 What for?
Like the "London lords"-crowd you are incapable of complex 3d thinking.
I've already given you all the facts you need to come to a conclusion that it was a mistake to "target entire cities".
The "accuracy"-debate is pointless.
It didn't matter where the bombers went, it didn't substantially impact German production (see that comment).
Just like Blitzkrieg aimed at the weaker links, so should Bomber Command (see comment re. "mining rivers", or "less well-defended target like VW or Mauser").
The decision to "flatten Germany" came back back to your "lords" after the war (see my new comment under the video).
After the war, weakened and indebted GB couldn't stand up to her WW2 "best fwiends", who subsequently dislocated/arm wrestled the Empire down.
From nr. 1 to 3rd fiddle. All in your grandpa's lifetime. I bet he was born into the greatest Empire ever, the "quarter of the globe"-narrative..."sun never sets, blah, blah."
I bet when he died it looked waaaay smaller, lol.
Ever heard of "debt trap diplomacy"?
No?
This entire issue goes waaaaay over your head, because you cannot think in 3d.
Enjoy your "2d checkers"-narrative.
Reap what you sow counts for all.
Also for GB.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"They are distracting you." - Dr. Norman Finkelstein
The "woman in the red dress" as Hollywood explaining the "distraction" in a pleb-friendly manner, or as the street would say "Look! SQUIRREL!!"; and our world offers endless distractions for the easily distracted.
For we have always existed in a post-truth world.
During the meetings of the Nicean Council, the powerful figures crafted a narrative for us common people, determining what was significant, what needed to be included "in," and what should be excluded "out" of this narrative. This process of deciding what to keep or omit is a strategy of power and is eternal. The choices regarding what information to retain or discard are always influenced by the individual biases of the attendees (ingroup), or they represent a flaw in reasoning, often referred to as lying by omission when something or someone is intentionally left "out" of the story.
"The First Council of Nicaea ... was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea ... by the Roman Emperor Constantine I. The Council of Nicaea met from May until the end of July 325.[5] This ecumenical council was the first of many efforts to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all Christendom.[6][7]" (wiki, edited, sources at the bottom of the webpage for further reading)
Numerous current ideologues find no issue with this historical analysis, as they believe there exists a "God who guided their hands."
Consequently, they assert that the narrative or theory presented in the book is accurate, as it is supported by their belief system, which is an example of circular reasoning. Circular reasoning = "we are good" (quote) because ...well "we are good"...
Around 1500 years later. Exemplary of lying by omission on a grand scale: "The Select Parts of the Holy Bible for the use of the ... Slaves in the British West-India Islands, sometimes referred to as the slave bible, is an abbreviated version of the Bible specifically made for teaching a pro-slavery version of Christianity to enslaved people in the British West Indies. Over 90% of the Old Testament was removed from The Bible and over 50% of the New Testament was removed from The Bible as well. … It was produced in England in the early 19th century ... It had all "references to freedom and escape from slavery" excised, while passages encouraging obedience and submission were emphasized. These references emphasizing loyalty and submission to the slave master were instructions handed down by Beilby Porteus (then Bishop of London), who stated: 'prepare a short form of public prayer, together with select portions of scripture particularly those which relate of the slave duties toward the master.' British missionaries used it in the education and conversion of the enslaved population. The editors included only 10 percent of the Old Testament and half of the New Testament." (Wikipedia/edited)
Consequently, they assert that the narrative or theory presented in this book is accurate, as it is supported by their belief system, which is an example of circular reasoning. Circular reasoning = "we are good" (quote) because ...well "we are good"...
The book is always good, because the good people wrote it. How can it be anything else, if a good system wrote it?
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nonamejohnson4809 ...so jihadists are evil?
Really?
Why create them then?
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Training "terrorists"?
How'd that work out?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Usually in debates like in these in the comments sections, it doesn't take long for the emotional argumentation and logical fallacies to set in.
For example, the "...but if we hadn't bombed city centers, how much stronger would Germany have been?"
Easy answer? Not much.
Historians who have studied air warfare in WW2 have already concluded this long ago.
For example Munsen, Kenneth/German Aircraft of WW2 ISBN 623.74'6'0943 p. 13
"It has been estimated that Allied raids between mid-1943 and early-1945 cost the Luftwaffe some 18,000 aircraft in lost production. On the other hand, if these aircraft had been received, shortages of aircrew, fuel, and munitions would have severely limited their effective use."
[End of quote]
It was not as much the bombing which limited German industry, but the lack of resources, especially oil.
Every raid, and every sortie flown in excess of what was really necessary against a few key industries (again, esp. oil targets), was a waste of Allied airmen and a waste of own resources.
Every bomber downed with the intent to kill "Oma Schickelgruber" who was ostensibly "in the way of valid targets", an exposed lie, was a needless waste of own lives.
Every Allied soldier sent to "save Stalin", was equally wasted.
The price for such folly would be paid after the war.
1
-
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized My comment is is not aimed against strategic bombing as such, but purely "the folly of trying to terror bomb cities" (as implemented with the Area Bombing policy/directives in 1942).
Your point:
Even if only legit targets (oil refineries, large area industrial plants, etc.) had been targeted, everything you wrote concerning German resources would still have been implemented by the Nazis.
In fact, had most raids concentrated on key industries right from the start, like (again) oil and chemical plants, even more German AA guns, fighters, etc. would have been concentrated here, relieving the front lines.
1
-
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized My initial comment is based on Douhet's initial doctrine proposals for future wars.
Basically: the bombardment of industry, transport infrastructure, communications, government and "break the will of the people".
The "morale bombing" bombing part of that is morally flawed. The same people who would state that "soldiers lining up civilians and mowing them them down" (like their enemies do) is despicable, then turn around 180˙ and say "burning people alive in their cities is 100% OK as long as we win".
Note here.
This is the "kill Oma Schickelgruber" jokingly referred to in books as a widespread attitude during the war.
Morally, most of the Allies (leaders and citizens alike) had no problem in making a civilian the prime target, as long as own moral deficiency can be hidden behind a suitable excuse ("we were actually aiming for factories, but missed").
This is a lie.
Civilians were not "collateral damage" (the euphemism used today) as the propaganda claimed during the war.
They were already the prime target of Area Bombing (the will of the people).
IMO (debatable) the issue was not "a learning curve", but a fundamental misunderstanding of geography/resources/balance of power.
Even an advocate of Douhet's proposals should have been able to foresee in any prewar appraisal that bombing Germany "to reduce production" was a fallacy in reasoning.
My key point: German (or any continental European country) production was not limited by a lack of factory space or production facilities, but entirely dictated by a lack of resources (or in other words, the lack of raw materials already placed a natural cap on production).
Why?
I'll point out in a separate comment which I'll copy and paste in below.
In their analysis of the main weakness of the Axis, the USA was spot on, and therefore proposed attacking a few key industries again and again. If they proposed this in 1942, it means that they had already deduced the above before even flying a single raid.
The US proposal was the correct one (no hindsight/learning curve).
At tbe same time, the RAF one of "dehousing/morale bombing" was wrong (again no hindsight/learning curve). Analysis of London, Coventry, Liverpool had already revealed that if bombed, civilians become closer knit, and rally around those who protect them (government/leaders).
1
-
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Re. the question (rhetoric) of "What else could have been done?/How should anybody have known that strategic bombing would turn out to be not nearly as successful as hoped? (or as post-1945 studies reveal)"
Re. "efficacy", a stated policy (thinly veiled by euphamisms) of flattening entire cities, it was indeed very little "bang for the buck" when compared what GB put into it on their production side, seeing how a strategic air force is (and was back then) the most expensive form of warfare.
Why was Area Bombing entirely flawed from the outset? (1942 perspective). Also the related, and often repeated (but fallacious) rhetoric like "..but how much stronger would Germany have been?'
That is not a rhetorical question.
The objective of the rhetorical question is to place an opposing view under pressure, by asking a question to which would reveal a weakness in the opposing side's logic.
In this case, it not a successful example of rhetoric, because the answer is simple.
German production was limited by resources.
A truism re. "production" is that it depends on 3 main factors: raw materials, labour, finance (incl. the construction of production sites).
Let's KISS it: If even one one these is missing/lacking then obviously production will suffer.
In a nutshell.
Europe in 1940 (Nazi sphere of influence) lack the resources for a protracted war in which production figures would be a determining factor for the Axis to win.
Re. Europe.
No Bauxite (or very little, compared to the entire sphere of influence in Allied hands or secured connections) = no aluminum
No Nickel = no armor
No Chrome = no high grade steel
No tungsten = no tools
No rubber = no tires for trucks
No oil = no mobile warfare.
German production would not have been significantly higher, because they did not have the raw materials, or access to those places in the world which had these resources. Anybody who states that 'German production would have been higher', should also follow it up with a full assessment of where the extra raw materials for a higher production would have come from, and more importantly, the oil to fuel the weapons of warfare (tanks, planes, artillery tractors, etc.)
German production came to a standstill around early 1945, when advancing ground forces cut off the last remaining connections to the sources of raw materials.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Africa and the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in Africa and the ME) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@muchomusiclibre "Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim. Harassing behavior may include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement, offensive touching or any physical interference with normal work or movement, and visual insults, such as derogatory posters or cartoons."
[USLegal]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@homelander-enjoyer Yes, it was western imperialism which is causing most of the "issues" we are dealing with today, in a loooong list of causal effects, one event of meddling following the other ever since the west "won" (sic.) the region from the Ottoman Empire during WW1.
The creation of "Israel" by the "winners" of a western imperial war (WW1), is another example of such imperialist meddling, equally reverberating all over the world right through to today. Zionism became a tool of the British Empire during WW1. No doubt Hitchens considers the WW1 allies as being "the right side of history", for the same reasoning as stated in the above essay. Even though WW1 was simply one set of "imperialists" squaring off against another set of "imperialists."
After WW2, the hegemon causing problems in the Levant and the ME in general, became Washington DC.
The Cold War and "oil" (interests), geopolitical/grand strategy strategic interests (like military bases, or the control of geographical chokepoints), was the reason for all of the US/collective West's meddling in the ME for more than 100 years...
From a position of POWER, the USA/collective West used and still uses, the age-old strategy of "divide and rule" over ALL these minor powers in the Middle East and therefore the Levant.
The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they initially created with their own desire to CONTROL and DOMINATE the world, as terrorists...
It's "divide and rule".
Stand up to the hegemon, and one becomes the outgroup.
It's ALWAYS divide and rule if governments defend wrongs against the wishes of most of its inhabitants. For the "dividers", the resulting division is always good. They can rule over the fear, the discord, manage the "finger pointers", and moderate the "pointed at" alike.
The "winners"?
Those who act like the historical "Rome" in the background, pulling the strings of POWER, affording favoratism to chosen ones, for their own aims and goals.
It's how "divide and rule" works...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The time is approaching.
For 50 years after 1945 the citizens of the USA have lived the "good life" at the expense of the rest of the world in the immediate post-WW2 years, when the rest of the planet was so weak it could not avoid US institutions/military/NGOs from imposing themselves, and vacuuming off enormous gain from a position of unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL invincibility...
Now, that ratio is down to 30% of the world's wealth.
It's decreasing...
What does the USA look like today? What will it look like when this amount of wealth of the world reaches 20%, or then 10%? When US citizens finally get closer to a "fair share" of the world's resources/wealth, and have to make do with the same amounts as everybody else, they will finally find out what level of psychopathy they have systemically enabled inside, operating from within their OWN country/state. When they can no longer vacuum off the wealth of the world, in an unfair manner (50% for us, the 6% of the planet), they will start finding out what human nature is like.
When the current 4% of the planet, have to make do with 4-5% of the world's wealth and resources as other nations come and take a fairer share of these resources for themselves, the USA will become everything they have always criticized, and finally discover they are just like everybody else.
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
Ruth Bader-Ginsburg: "To Those Accustomed to Privilege Equality feels like Oppression".
In the coming years, Americans are going to start feel soooooo "oppressed" and feel the urge to fight back against "all those jelis peepil" (🤣😂) the 95% of the planet, who somehow had to manage with the other 50% of the wealth/resources for the fifty or sixty years after World War II.
America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this desirable disparity continues.
Set up "patterns" of European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
CONTROL the access to its own POWER.
Keep others either "down" or "out" per "rulings".
No, that isn't a "conspiracy theory".
It is "divide and rule", in different contexts, on different tiers, and in different eras of history.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
CONTROL the resources, which are the limiting factor (NOT "money" which is simply a "means" to divide)
Find volunteers and local ambitious rulers who collaborate, who "dance for money", and the sky is the limit for the dividers...
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) as the template.
The strategy to avoid unity in Eurasia, or to avoid "avoid war" (note: double negative), has been the same for the past 200 years.
Welcome to your tool/fool status, minion...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Words can be "spun".
The reality of "what happened" cannot.
Here, an unknown version, of a famous historical event "framed" according to our current MSM standards.
"The Herero revolted in early 1904, killing between 123 and 150 German settlers, as well as seven Boers and three women ..."
What terrible people, who (quote) "deserved everything they got."
Everybody knows that history started that day.
Obviously, the Germans had a right to defend themselves.
The press was all over the place going "Do you condemn the KHerrero terrorists??" at the start of every interview with a "Herrero apologist". Whenever questions were asked, just go "But it's a war" and follow up with a slogan like "They asked for it," or "Don't start something you can't finish," or "How can anybody live with neighbors like that?", or one or other of the typical short brainless comments under every "Gaza war" MSM video on youtube. When attrocities happen, claim innocence and point the finger... Did you hear that one about the "40 beheaded babies" too? Right thru to today, there are still a few useful idiots parroting that one...
Do you think you cannot be deceived by words? Think again.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau with re. to framing and spinning, or wording in propaganda: "There are always four sides to a story: Your side, their side, the truth and what really happened." The ingroup reality, the outgroup reality, the spun narrative that comes out of that, and the mangled timeline of events which starts with what the MSM wishes to elevate in importance, and follows (sometimes) with what they wish to hide or downplay.
With the DARVO strategy, and a nice sounding story, one can reverse "victim" and "offender" in every historical scenario.
"Deny the causes, accuse the oppressed, then reverse victim and offender," is happening and you are watching it, right now.
One day, everybody on the planet will have always been against this...
Now, scroll down in the comments of any typical pro-Israel vid, and confirm the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ASIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside systems can "surf in and skim off the profits". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS OR PERSONAL PRIORITIES
Most European people are far too daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive them too, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that they end up thinking everything they do is justified, with "only a few exceptions" in order to seem fair...
Has your nation, or a leader already been "chosen as a favorite son of the West"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have with neighbors aside, or settle them fast, and don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme. Actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples across all borders.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these Western "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU today, for the gain of the outside Western Powers, just like divide and rule sacrificed your grandparents and previous Asian generations during the Era of Imperialism...
------------------------
P.S.: I cannot personally post this message myself too often, since YT autoblocks it as "spam" if I copy and paste it under videos too often. I need YOUR help. In your own interest of safety, please spread this message with regards to the age-old "divide and rule"-strategy of outside (non-Asian) powers. Thank You.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc...
Sorry to burst your bubble.
I've got some bad news for all you "never gonna fight"-fanboys.
YOU. WILL. GO.
Capturing the hearts and minds of the (mainly) young, rebellious, and easily-influenced, is a long-term goal of what W.T. Stead set out to do as the "Americanization of the World" (book) on all tiers: ideology, food, industrial products, movies, language, etc. Of course, what he didn't mention back then almost a hundred years ago when this global strategy started, was that this was in effect an old Roman-era strategy of power: to morph the conquered, to become "like Rome." Fill the bellies of the global masses ("Bread") and distract them with entertainment ("Circuses"), and then turn them into the tools of the empire.
Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy.
It gave whites ("Europeans") the basis of the power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other.
The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
Divide-and-rule was the advantage they thought they held 100 and 200 years ago, and they think it still is today.
There can be only 1 "winner". The others are the systemic "cannon fodder" for the gain of the few "buck passers".
Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything, nobody ever decided anything, everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, profiteers, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and finger-pointers...
Teach your children well...
Of course these hundreds of comments by Americans and Canadians mirror the comments made by hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favourite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the leadup to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power (in stages after 1890), in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) and their "buck-catchers", nodded off by the "buck passers" which hold the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed right through to today.
Whatever...
Guess who "wins"?
The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand).
The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction (MIRVs carrying nukes) as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politicians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles (see my comment 4 weeks ago).
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct date on the timeline which is March 1939, when they did nothing.
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not in my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies. How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets have they. Me want some...me take some."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen positive relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Curb the darker aspects which create internal division.
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Be principled, or become a tool.
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up.
Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hasan is correct.
His core message is founded on sufficient evidence, so what's the issue?
As Robert Kennedy Jr. notes about the history of the ME:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster
So who was it that went to their world, removed their moderate leaders, and replaced them with religiously indoctrinated nitwits?
Correct answer: Our religiously indoctrinated nitwits who wanted to turn people into tools....lmfao...
The USA absolutely loooooves Jihadists, as long as they don't act against the USA.
Or, that Biblical logic: "the people shall reap what your leaders have sown"...
1
-
1
-
Today, Washington DC/USA intends to keep its role as "alpha" of the world (just like London/GB did "around 1900"), gained from European empires after WW2.
There is even an "insider joke" about NATO, which is that it intends to "keep Germany down, and Russia out".
Effect: Washington DC/USA stays the master of European affairs.
NATO is now just another tool in the toolbox of "divide and conquer", going back all the way to the 18th century, when the USA was first established.
European powers failed to morph NATO into a more suitable system following the end of the Cold War "around the year 2000".
A system including Russia and all post-Warsaw Pact nations equally, in a comprehensive security agreement.
Note always: What did not happen.
Of course a comprehensive security agreement without ...ahem...."parallel treaties", and a "morphed NATO" into a strong arm of international law = power to actually follow up with punch if "the law" is broken.
A new system under which laws, codified by the international community, actually formed a basis of cooperation, not "muh interests you know..."
US leaders realized that the key to their own superiority lay in dividing Europeans any which way they could (note, "Europe" is a geographical term, and includes Russia).
Sowing dissent.
The "freedom and democracy"-argument, backed up by coffers filled to the brim with "slush fund" money...
Sow dissent.
Irrelevant of whether the actors come with good intentions, or are even aware of what they are ultimately doing: Divide and Rule/Conquer, for a different system.
There is a long history...
"In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution had been defeated and its leaders, who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile by the Stadtholder, William V, Prince of Orange, in league with the old oligarchs and with the intervention of Britain and Prussia. Adams and Jefferson agonized for the Dutch Patriots, but felt that they had been betrayed by their own excesses as well as by their Bourbon ally. The fact that France, pledged to the Patriots, had not lifted a finger in their support offered a melancholy lesson for the United States..."
(from ugapress manifoldapp)
Who doth even recognize the "freedom and democracy"-argument here?
Irrelevant of intentions, it fits the definition of "sowing dissent" in an existing "system".
Irrelevant of whether the reader has any personal preferences: the actions fit words, and words have definitions, which are a strategy. Divide others, to avoid unity.
Of course, at this early stage the USA had no way to implement "rule" in any form.
A divided Europe suited Washington DC just fine, because should Europe ever unite, it could pose an existential threat to the new USA...
The more division in Europe, the better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gsmilton8 From Stanford, about the US WAR on Drugs declared by Nixon in 1972.
"America is at war. We have been fighting drug abuse for almost a century. Four Presidents have personally waged war on drugs. Unfortunately, it is a war that we are losing. Drug abusers continue to fill our courts, hospitals, and prisons. The drug trade causes violent crime that ravages our neighborhoods. Children of drug abusers are neglected, abused, and even abandoned. The only beneficiaries of this war are organized crime members and drug dealers.
The United States has focused its efforts on the criminalization of drug use. The government has, to no avail, spent countless billions of dollars in efforts to eradicate the supply of drugs. Efforts of interdiction and law enforcement have not been met with decreases in the availability of drugs in America. Apart from being highly costly, drug law enforcement has been counterproductive. Current drug laws need to be relaxed. The United States needs to shift spending from law enforcement and penalization to education, treatment, and prevention."
Being in denial about a condition, doesn't make the condition go away.
Your tax dollars are financing war in Central America, and you denying it, doesn't make the facts untrue.
1
-
1
-
@gsmilton8 Call off war on drugs, leader of Guatemala tells the west
Otto Pérez Molina says regulated narcotics market must be introduced to forestall threat to democracy from drug cartels
Jamie Doward
Sat 19 Jan 2013 21.03 GMTFirst published on Sat 19 Jan 2013
"The west's "war on drugs" has failed and continuing with prohibition will only cost more lives, the Guatemalan president, Otto Pérez Molina, declares in an interview in the Observer.
In a further sign that the global consensus on drugs is fragmenting, Pérez Molina will use a debate at this week's Davos forum in Switzerland to attack the international community for its support for prohibition, and to call for a regulated narcotics market.
"I believe western countries fail to understand the reality that countries such as Guatemala and those of Central America have to live in," said Pérez Molina. "There has been plenty of talk, but no effective response. I believe, ultimately, that this is due to a lack of understanding on the part of western countries."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It "started" quite innocently, way before WW2.
With a London policy.
I'm sure the British population and the inhabitants of Empire would have been happy if their toffs hadn't made Germany the enemy as a default setting.
The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting...
[britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power]
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.
It came first before all other considerations.
It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding
1) alliances
2) treaties (or no treaties)
3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord)
4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle)
5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint)
6) when to engage in arms races
7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences
Go over your history, and see its handwriting all around...
Enjoy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If anybody wishes to know what is in store for the EU and other American "best fwiends" after 2025, look back in history to what the USA did to the British Empire after WW2, when it was bankrupt and weak. The first victim of the American Century was not as proclaimed and the generally accepted narrative of history, that "it was the USSR" (sic./Truman Doctrine, "Iron Curtain"-narrative), but the British Empire, which was cut down to size turning London from "British lion" to "poodle" in around 25 years, using economic warfare.
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500. My shoutout to the original author's whose site is since removed.]
A blueprint for how one Albion deceived the other, to become the "next Albion".
The transfer of power from one slimeball system to the next.
Pure unfettered opportunism.
After 1945 the USA used its own might as hammer and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). By 1945, Stalin (Moscow), smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and witnessing the collapse of virtually every other European power, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2. It was overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has self-centred imperialist aims and goals , one eventually destroys all alternatives, and when you try to defend everything, you'll eventually "defend nothing" (Friedrich the Great, re. a false allocation of clout and resources, in grand strategy and geopolitics).
That was preceded in geopolitics by a Washington DC shift away from a global non-interventionalist stand on international relations, towards a more active engagement in world affairs and global expansion which incl. European affairs (the study of "Offensive Realism") which started around the year 1900, symbolized by the Spanish-American War (1898). Something London lords happily signed up for with the "Great Rapprochement" (aligned and associated "friends only, no obligations", in the "interests"-reality of imperialism). London must have thought the good times were coming, alongside their "new friends" and making the rules for everybody else. Two Albions getting happily engaged...
What could possibly go wrong putting your trust in Washington DC?
AROUND THE YEAR 2000
In reality, your "friends" in capitalism over the Atlantic can't wait for history to repeat, to wait until Europe is weak again, exhausted from war, down in power, ready for the carving knives of OUTSIDE imperialism, all by the "friends" who are standing by and standing down to enter and benefit from the division and destruction they themselves greatly contributed to after the 1990s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Tollp4ch In 1945, the crowds understandably cheered the end of the war...
Meanwhile as the crowds cheered and jeered, in the background, big daddy USA ate up the British Empire:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Like like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon"...
Where are all the BBC documentaries informing the public about these postwar events?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's divide-and-rule.
At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule.
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others...
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favouritism.
"Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Africa, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the behavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD"
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact. It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of. What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of those in search of profit and in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. For the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact that it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 1945, the crowds understandably cheered the end of the war...
Meanwhile as the crowds cheered and jeered, in the background, big daddy USA ate up the British Empire:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Like like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon"..
1945: Brits got screwed out of their Empire by their best friends.
Yup...so it goes...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not the first time...
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had the global influence of the Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can deny that it exists, because just like gravity, it cannot be seen.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like gravity, one can ignore that it exists, yet benefit from it at the same time.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like gravity exposes its own existence, by simple observation, anyone can observe the existence of divide and rule...
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like giant vacuum cleaners, it creates multiple systems on multiple levels, each with its own benefactors, and sucks of the hard labor from a base, and funnels it to the top.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that 99% of the participants who are involved, are blissfully unaware how they are actors in a game and can claim innocence while defending the systems at the same time.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can mask it behind innocuous policies, like meritocracy, and still claim to be doing the best politics possible.
The same way one can plausibly explain how one is a state of isolationism, yet be peculiarly in a state of constant interventionalism and war at the same time: invisible magic...***
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can plausibly deny its existance, yet constantly profit from it.
The cool thing about divide and rule, is that at the very top, the systems of empire, it creates a giant vacuum cleaner that funnels power to the top. "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. Within this framework the role of France, Germany and England of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations. . ."
The fruits of hard consistent invisible labor.
Divide and rule.
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world." Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire. - Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
The fruits of hard consistent unseen effects.
Divide and rule.
***With regards to Interventionalism: the USA was supposed to be Isolationist: John Quincy Adams delivered a speech in 1821 stating the USA's founding foreign policy of non-intervention and the US government's premise not to get entangled in or meddle in the affairs of another state. Adams issued the dire warning: Should America ever abandon her founding principle of non-interventionism, she would become "the dictatress of the world."
Just like Eisenhower issued a dire warning about Military Industrial Complexes, everybody knows how effective such warnings are.
The two-tier approach: get some people to say one thing, while others do the opposite...
Divide and rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Peacekeeper1989 The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. Today, this has transformed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBERALS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. This branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Soulless are those who drag the world from one pointless war to the next...
"Since World War II, during a supposed golden age of peace, the United States military has killed or helped kill some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 84 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. The United States is responsible for the deaths of 5 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and over 1 million just since 2003 in Iraq.
Since 2001, the United States has been systematically destroying a region of the globe, bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, not to mention the Philippines. The United States has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces in three-quarters of them."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@updatemysettings5095 ...aaaand, before you try to counter with a "...but, but, but...they were commies".
From Wiki "A nationalist political movement soon emerged, with leaders like Phan Bội Châu, Phan Châu Trinh, Phan Đình Phùng, Emperor Hàm Nghi, and Hồ Chí Minh fighting or calling for independence.[84] This resulted in the 1930 Yên Bái mutiny by the Vietnamese Nationalist Party (VNQDĐ), which the French quashed. The mutiny caused an irreparable split in the independence movement that resulted in many leading members of the organisation becoming communist converts.[85][86][87]"
They only turned to the commies for aid after their moderate leaders were so very un-Christianlike treated like sh*t...
What does the Bible say again?
Oh yeah..."as you show, so shall you reap".
Sow hatred, division, and the arrogance of power...reap revolution and war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@updatemysettings5095 You don't have to prove to me that US citizens and NGOs have done a lot a good.
That however, is offset by the actions of a few people in power, who have caused enormous amounts of destruction, death, and harm.
You could say that what you've mentioned, is necessary because of everything your government has done this last century or so....
Again, in the hypothetical situation of you being in a position to aid Vietnamese independence in the 1920s and 1930s, would you have been "more Jesus" (do onto others) or more "empire"? (keep 'em under the boot)
It's a simple question, so why are you avoiding it?
[note here, that I'm not avoiding your question, because it is based on an unprovable premise]
1
-
1
-
"Effects of French colonial rule
Whatever economic progress Vietnam made under the French after 1900 benefited only the French and the small class of wealthy Vietnamese created by the colonial regime. The masses of the Vietnamese people were deprived of such benefits by the social policies inaugurated by Doumer and maintained even by his more liberal successors, such as Paul Beau (1902–07), Albert Sarraut (1911–14 and 1917–19), and Alexandre Varenne (1925–28). Through the construction of irrigation works, chiefly in the Mekong delta, the area of land devoted to rice cultivation quadrupled between 1880 and 1930. During the same period, however, the individual peasant’s rice consumption decreased without the substitution of other foods. The new lands were not distributed among the landless and the peasants but were sold to the highest bidder or given away at nominal prices to Vietnamese collaborators and French speculators. These policies created a new class of Vietnamese landlords and a class of landless tenants who worked the fields of the landlords for rents of up to 60 percent of the crop, which was sold by the landlords at the Saigon export market. The mounting export figures for rice resulted not only from the increase in cultivable land but also from the growing exploitation of the peasantry.
The peasants who owned their land were rarely better off than the landless tenants. The peasants’ share of the price of rice sold at the Saigon export market was less than 25 percent. Peasants continually lost their land to the large owners because they were unable to repay loans given them by the landlords and other moneylenders at exorbitant interest rates. As a result, the large landowners of Cochinchina (less than 3 percent of the total number of landowners) owned 45 percent of the land, while the small peasants (who accounted for about 70 percent of the owners) owned only about 15 percent of the land. The number of landless families in Vietnam before World War II was estimated at half of the population.
The peasants’ share of the crop—after the landlords, the moneylenders, and the middlemen (mostly Chinese) between producer and exporter had taken their share—was still more drastically reduced by the direct and indirect taxes the French had imposed to finance their ambitious program of public works. Other ways of making the Vietnamese pay for the projects undertaken for the benefit of the French were the recruitment of forced labour for public works and the absence of any protection against exploitation in the mines and rubber plantations, although the scandalous working conditions, the low salaries, and the lack of medical care were frequently attacked in the French Chamber of Deputies in Paris. The mild social legislation decreed in the late 1920s was never adequately enforced.
Apologists for the colonial regime claimed that French rule led to vast improvements in medical care, education, transport, and communications. The statistics kept by the French, however, appear to cast doubt on such assertions. In 1939, for example, no more than 15 percent of all school-age children received any kind of schooling, and about 80 percent of the population was illiterate, in contrast to precolonial times when the majority of the people possessed some degree of literacy. With its more than 20 million inhabitants in 1939, Vietnam had but one university, with fewer than 700 students. Only a small number of Vietnamese children were admitted to the lycées (secondary schools) for the children of the French. Medical care was well organized for the French in the cities, but in 1939 there were only 2 physicians for every 100,000 Vietnamese, compared with 76 per 100,000 in Japan and 25 per 100,000 in the Philippines.
Two other aspects of French colonial policy are significant when considering the attitude of the Vietnamese people, especially their educated minority, toward the colonial regime: one was the absence of any kind of civil liberties for the native population, and the other was the exclusion of the Vietnamese from the modern sector of the economy, especially industry and trade. Not only were rubber plantations, mines, and industrial enterprises in foreign hands—French, where the business was substantial, and Chinese at the lower levels—but all other business was as well, from local trade to the great export-import houses. The social consequence of this policy was that, apart from the landlords, no property-owning indigenous middle class developed in colonial Vietnam. Thus, capitalism appeared to the Vietnamese to be a part of foreign rule; this view, together with the lack of any Vietnamese participation in government, profoundly influenced the nature and orientation of the national resistance movements."
Quoted from Britannica.
Would you have aided the people of Vietnam in their cause for freedom from foreign domination, and in favor of "life, liberty and hapiness"?
Yes or no?
1
-
1
-
@updatemysettings5095 Two other aspects of French colonial policy are significant when considering the attitude of the Vietnamese people, especially their educated minority, toward the colonial regime: one was the absence of any kind of civil liberties for the native population, and the other was the exclusion of the Vietnamese from the modern sector of the economy, especially industry and trade. Not only were rubber plantations, mines, and industrial enterprises in foreign hands—French, where the business was substantial, and Chinese at the lower levels—but all other business was as well, from local trade to the great export-import houses. The social consequence of this policy was that, apart from the landlords, no property-owning indigenous middle class developed in colonial Vietnam. Thus, capitalism appeared to the Vietnamese to be a part of foreign rule; this view, together with the lack of any Vietnamese participation in government, profoundly influenced the nature and orientation of the national resistance movements."
Quoted from Britannica.
Would you have aided the people of Vietnam in their cause for freedom from foreign domination, and in favor of "life, liberty and hapiness"?
Yes or no?
Do you understand the biblical "reap what you sow"?
Why did the USA support the oppressive and dictatorial French colonial rule?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@updatemysettings5095 ‘Divide and rule’
To minimise local resistance, the French employed a ‘divide and rule’ strategy, undermining Vietnamese unity by playing local mandarins, communities and religious groups against each other.
According to one French colonial edict, it was even illegal to use the name ‘Vietnam’.
Profit, not politics, was the driving force behind French colonisation. Over time, colonial officials and French companies transformed Vietnam’s thriving subsistence economy into a proto-capitalist system, based on land ownership, increased production, exports and low wages.
Millions of Vietnamese no longer worked to provide for themselves; they now worked for the benefit of French colons (settlers). The French seized vast swathes of land and reorganised them into large plantations. Small landholders were given the option of remaining as labourers on these plantations or relocating elsewhere.
Where there were labour shortfalls, Viet farmers were recruited en masse from outlying villages. Sometimes they came voluntarily, lured by false promises of high wages; sometimes they were conscripted at the point of a gun.
Rice and rubber were the main cash crops of these plantations. The amount of land used for growing rice almost quadrupled in the 20 years after 1880 while Cochinchina (southern Vietnam) had 25 gigantic rubber plantations. By the 1930s, Indochina was supplying 60,000 tons of rubber each year, five per cent of all global production. The French also constructed factories and built mines to tap into Vietnam’s deposits of coal, tin and zinc.
Most of this material was sold abroad as exports. Most of the profits lined the pockets of French capitalists, investors and officials.
Life under colonialism
The workers on plantations in French Indochina were known as ‘coolies’, a derogatory term for Asian labourers. They worked long hours in debilitating conditions for wages that were pitifully small. Some were paid in rice rather than money.
The working day could be as long as 15 hours, without breaks or adequate food and fresh water. French colonial laws prohibited corporal punishment but many officials and overseers used it anyway, beating slow or reluctant workers. Malnutrition, dysentery and malaria were rife on plantations, especially those producing rubber. It was not uncommon for plantations to have several workers die in a single day.
Conditions were particularly poor on the plantations owned by French tyre manufacturer Michelin. In the 20 years between the two world wars, one Michelin-owned plantation recorded 17,000 deaths. Vietnamese peasant farmers who remained outside the plantations were subject to the corvee, or unpaid labour. Introduced in 1901, the corvee required male peasants of adult age to complete 30 days of unpaid work on government buildings, roads, dams and other infrastructure.
Colonial taxes and opium
The French also burdened the Vietnamese with an extensive taxation system. This included income tax on wages, a poll tax on all adult males, stamp duties on a wide range of publications and documents, and imposts on the weighing and measuring of agricultural goods.
Even more lucrative were the state monopolies on rice wine and salt – commodities used extensively by locals. Most Vietnamese had previously made their own rice wine and gathered their own salt – but by the start of the 1900s, both could only be purchased through French outlets at heavily inflated prices.
French officials and colonists also benefited from growing, selling and exporting opium, a narcotic drug extracted from poppies. Land was set aside to grow opium poppies and by the 1930s, Vietnam was producing more than 80 tonnes of opium each year. Not only were local sales of opium very profitable, its addictiveness and stupefying effects were a useful form of social control. By 1935 France’s collective sales of rice wine, salt and opium were earning more than 600 million francs per annum, the equivalent of $US5 billion today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@updatemysettings5095 Doing good is a natural instinct in all cultures, ethnicities, and religions. Note, not all individuals, but actually the overwhelming majority of individuals.
It is in fact, the core foundation of most entities.
Is there evil?
Of course.
But the evils of this world are in a minority, and as long as most people are content (note, not "happy", because happiness is subjective) the rabble rousers don't get an opening to insert their lever of discontent, with which they can pry open societies (leading to uprisings, revolutions, or even war).
The trick about history is that we must determine the point in time where "evil" starts, and if the evidence of colonial rule by the French, and the tools of rule they used for 80 years ("divide and rule"), is not evidence enough then I fear no "holy book" can open your eyes either...
The mistakes will be repeated.
Note here, that "history" is being sold to you the wrong way.
Your esteemed historians simply pin their flag on a randomly selected date which suites their narrative, and proclaim: Here is where history starts...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michealmcneal2259 On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose.
Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation...
Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
Last entity to find this out the hard way was the Kurds, in the Middle East hellhole that evolved after the destabilizing 2003 invasion. Their ally, the faraway "empire" USA decided they'd seen enough body bags, and sunk enough resources (also financial) and withdrew. The effect was predictable to all those with a keen eye on how similar historical events unfolded...
America first...bye bye Kurdistan.
For example, at Versailles Poland decided to ally itself to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests...
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London: Sorry Poland. We're not ready yet. Hang in there...a few more months...
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum.
Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people...
Czech leaders thinking that "faraway empires" would protect them forever and ever...nope.
1938: "Here you go Adolf...have your way. Just don't tickle us too hard..."
Even before that, France decided to ally itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the channel if a conflict evolved.
How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please?"
Or the 1920s British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire.
In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies...
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Read history, and analyze it correctly, not for the sake of current potential short-term gain...
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Then, deepen relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer".
I hope our leaders have learned their lesson, and will stand up to outside attempts at division.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@appletree6741 My favorite imperialist quote/standpoint of all times must be "if I don’t steal your home, someone else will steal it," (which can be searched) which honestly I don't know whether I should be ROFL or tearing my hair out in disbelief and grief. In fact the essence of all historical imperialist greed during the era of European imperialism, because all the leaders of the imperialist powers and all their fanboys (and few fangirls too, I assume) thought that if they didn't rock up some place hundreds or thousands of miles away from their place of birth, to stick their banner down (or paper-plant-down the "rights" of their corporations "Smedley-Butler"-style), or "teach lessons" to some locals, that some or other different imperialist, waving a different banner, and chanting a different slogan, might just beat them to it. All such cases of imperialists accusing others of being imperialists, and the excuse then being that "if I don't do WRONG, then somebody else will do WRONG before I get there".
The imperialist mindset is exposed BY the "imperialist" (or apologists), by way of what they consider the "norm".
IMHO, at some point in a debate, every activist for a cause should just take a gun in their hands, and actually start shooting for what they so vociferously support with their words.
Unfortunately, the world is filled to the brim with those who are very vocal in their support of a cause during the countdown, or when its only about words, but when it comes to the actual clash, there is an entire list of reasons why they or their kids shouldn't be in the trenches....
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century, just like every other POTUS in history. Some might have been more openly imperialistic, but they all served an expansive empire.
Peace? YES.
Idolatry? No.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Fact is that Trump, or any other previous admin, did not stop this "(systemic) slow march".
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemony.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quiet or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
Just claim hero status for the self, and blame everybody else for everything which goes wrong.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Already predicted. Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
1
-
October/November 1918.
Why did Wilhelm "have to go"...
In politics, we are hardly ever given the real reasons why things happen, or why policy decisions are implemented.
Of course yesterday's politics, is today's history...
The truth behind "why Wilhelm had to go" is there for all to see, and has been written about in great detail in the past.
It had little to do with WW1, or Wilhelm's "personality disorder" (lol).
As Tolkien states, long forgotten history became legend. Legend turned to myth. And after 100 years the reality of what happened passed out of all knowledge.
Re. why Wilhelm had to go, has simply been forgotten.
The reality of "what happened" is that soon after his ascent to power (around the time "leaning East" Bismarck took his hat), Wilhelm wanted to unite Europe.
In his own frustrated later words "with or without GB".
That can be read about in great detail and with sources in largely forgotton works: for example in the first few pages of THE ANGLO-GERMAN ALLIANCE NEGOTIATIONS: MISSED OPPORTUNITY OR MYTH by H.W. Koch (free to read online after registration at JSTOR) or several other free pdf theses on the topic.
Unfortunately most of these scholarly works mostly deal with how it turned out and not the initial intention by Berlin of such a potentially possible European alliance system with an Anglo-German Alliance at its core.
Only a few historians correctly point out how such an alliance system was never desired by key individual European players, especially in London, and therefore "wishful thinking" from the outset. See the "history" of the apparently "poor dissed London lords" who apparently "really really wanted to become Berlin's BFFs" (sic.), but Berlin had insiduous "world conquering dreams".
According to "Die Legende von der Verschmähten englischen Freundschaft 1898 to 1901" (1929) by Gerhard Ritter, the historian makes clear that it was London which never wanted such an alliance. The talks about a Eurpean alliance system did not "start" (as often stated) "in 1898", but much sooner. Bismarck had already sent the "feelers" much earlier, and Wilhelm intended to follow up on these (see the successful good start with the Helgoland-Zansibar Treaty as an act of good faith by both sides).
As it turned out "with GB" was not possible because London wanted "Splendid Isolation" as the elevated policy standpoint of a few influencial lords.
The "few" with veto powers would have used these powers to torpedo any attempt within the circle of London lords for any form of European unity, either "with or without GB".
To Quote: "Thirdly — but more contentiously — his veto of an Anglo-German alliance, as late as 1901, has been blamed, notably by Julian Amery in his biography of Joseph Chamberlain, as leading to the First World War and, by implication, to all the horrors which came after." (Amery 1969, p.158: edit for clarification, "third" in a list of the historian's list of key failures re. the Chamberlain Sr. years).
Just to clarify further. The same British lord who "oh-so honestly" set out try to create an Anglo-German Alliance in 1898 together with Lord Balfour, admitted to vetoing it if there was ever a chance of a version not to the lords' liking under discussion. Same as today, a few key figures can always veto any idea put forward, advocated on, or even decided on by majority concensus, and it did not matter how good such an idea (political proposition) is today, or was at the time.
It was GB which chose "against".
In 1896, Wilhelm II therefore "turned East" and personally handed the Russian Tzar a memorandum named "On the need to form a politico-merchantile union of European states against the USA".
In it, Wilhelm expressed his desire to turn Europe ("with or without GB", but still preferably including GB) into a united power which could stand up against the rapidly rising USA.
Hmmmmmmm....interesting.
"Against the USA" (sic.), and in 1918 Washington DC insisted on exactly this man to abdicate...
In 1918, Wilson representing the rapidly rising power USA, demanded that Wilhelm II should leave office in order for any peace talks to commence.
Of course, the "dividers" intent on "dividing" European power into manageable bits, sat in Washington DC. With their own entry into WW1, these strategists had got their "foot in the door" of European matters: their willing "little helpers" in London and Paris thereby signed the own death warrants for their own empires.
Because if you are a dragon (an imperialist power with an "empire"), don't cuddle up to a dragon slayer (a nation whose very foundation was anti-imperialism).
Wilhelm II had to go, because he wanted a united Europe, to mirror what was happening on the other side of the Atlantic.
It wasn't the "flamboyent Weltpolitic" or "nasty rhetoric" or "wanting to rule the world" (or any of the often overstated "historical details") which made Wilhelm unpopular with the other powers on the fringes of the European continent, but his desire to unite Europe in order to speak with a united voice against the rising USA. Germany's neighbors were unwilling to accept Berlin's "price tag" for such a "united Europe": more influence in the world (and a few more colonies) for Berlin.
Of course, everything has a "price tag".
Even the USA's "help" to "win WW1" had a price tag...
To add to the above.
Our history is often overburdened with judgements, rather than analyses.
A certain standpoint of "my government was better than your government"-attitude plays a large role.
The forms of governments which evolved (timeline) were a result of their geographical locations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Washington DC played a large role in the destruction of multipolarity following the year 1900.
Now, they will do the utmost to resist a new multipolar world.
Following the year 1900, Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, they ALL lost.
WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and GB off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted.
WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that Atlanticists (the naval powers) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination.
In the end they ALL lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After WW2 this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards. Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Chinese (an assortment of ethnic groups, religions and linguistically related peoples in East Asia) were collectively wise enough to wake up out of their own CENTURY OF HUMILIATION and create a strong unity, as a balance of power with a single front door for own interests.
CHINESE CENTURY OF HUMILIATION
For that historical analysis, one must first become realistic about the forces which were imposed on the own systems, from OUTSIDE. During these roughly 100 years, these OUTSIDERS used China as playground and a battlefield of systems/ideologies. After China started rising in power again after the 1970s, the OUTSIDERS (imperialist powers not from this region) intended to REPEAT their previous "success" of rule by division. Break up China, into smaller administrative regions, easy to rule, dominate, and use as steered TOOLS from outside by a variety of means (money, ideology, etc.).
Forces of OUTSIDE division, do not DIVIDE other regions of the planet because they care about the regional "locals". These OUTSIDERS divide others because it reduces their collective power, and for own interests of gain models (cyclic dynamical systems of gain).
One must also first become realistic with regards to what strategies of powers were employed by the "sides".
DIVIDE-AND-RULE
"The policy which Britain has been pursuing for the last two centuries has brought her prosperity and greatness. After each victory, Britain seems, on the surface to have gained for herself no advantage whatever; all she did, she claimed to be an act of international chivalry and justice but a deeper analysis of British statesmen's claims reveals that they never speak the truth. Britain's key policy is to attack the strongest country with the help of weaker countries and then to join the weakened enemy in checking the growth of other countries and so on, and so on. British foreign policy has remained basically unchanged for two centuries. When Britain befriends or colonizes another country, the purpose is not to maintain a cordial friendship for the sake of friendship but to utilize that country as a tool to fight all threats to her supremacy. Therefore Britain always remains in a commanding position by making other countries fight her wars while she herself reaps the fruits of victory." Taken from The Vital Problem of China by Sun Yat-Sen, 1917
Virtually a template that describes every aspect of the divide-and-rule strategy, and that Europeans could have learned from, but never did, until all went down.
Unlike the Chinese after WW2, Europeans didn't learn the lesson.
THE EUROPEAN CENTURY OF HUMILIATION (1914 - today/ongoing)
Just like in China during its "Century of Humiliation" (1839-1947), in Europe, the local political forces which strove to put Europe First, as balance to the Wilsonian "America First" had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER during the 20th and 21st centuries. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for European interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside imperialist powers and their proxy domination. During these roughly 100 years after the 1890s, the European playgrounds were a battlefield of systems/ideologies, all continuously using Europe, not their own already divvied up and ruled over lands, as battleground.
HOW TO OVERCOME DIVIDE-AND-RULE
Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided European systems, is of course a dumb strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. You don't fight the "fire" of division with fire, but with water (unity). Unfortunately, it took the Chinese millions of deaths and misery, to overcome the divisions create previously by outsiders, cooperating with a few local proxies during the Century of Humiliation. An effect of mass death and starvation which these outside dividers then finger point at in a Black Legend, with their dumb "look at how evil the communists are"-rhetoric, too indoctrinated to figure out that their previous own IMPERIALIST actions CAUSED this as an attempt to squeeze them out of China. One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity in a region. If systemically weak, and while systemically weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. As an example of history rhyming, this political/cultural capture set out to take over Central Europe's main power, Germany after 1920. The weak Weimar Republic was the perfect environment and breeding ground for an outside empire's takeover (cultural-, political-, economic capture), just like China's political weakness was exploited in the Far East. It was part of the "Americanization of the World" (W.T. Stead/1901), which TRIGGERED a local political response, just like in China after 1945. This RESPONSE was that of focussing more on traditional values, and top-down political rule, based on the own previous history. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division which WILL be systematically captured in a weak state/country. Previously the regime change operation WW1, had removed exactly those gatekeepers which would have kept new up-striving ideologues out of positions of control and power: Had a monarch stayed on as regional hegemony, as even Churchill candidly admitted. The "little corporal" as political competition, vying for power, would have been kicked all the way back to the Alps selling postcards...
Of course, in their narratives of the "right side of history", the DIVIDING POWERS operating from the lap of luxury just loooove democracy: It can be used to pat the own back when things go right, and it can be used to point the finger at entire regions of the planet & and the peoples living here as Black Legend, if things go wrong. Meanwhile (reality) it ONLY works in systems of widespread wealth and equality, and will disappear into oceans of "post political division" (aka revolutions and uprisings) if the wealth falters, and the equality is erased as the dividers cling to their money. Its virtues disappearing in a sea of corruption.
IN REALITY, ALL THE TALK MEANS NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL.
It is simply emotional capture, to ensure those who "love their countries" stay on to face what had been sown.
That is the future of the USA, as it was for the UK after 1945. From "ruler of the world" to "downtrodden economic collapse (1970s), taken as "poodle" under the wing of the USA. Unlike the UK, or Western European "poodles" there will be no "wing" for Americans to slip under, as they fail to match the rise of the Far East/Central- and East Asia following the year 2000, and this despite their best efforts to crash the economies of even their "friends" (Japan, the 1980s).
DIVIDE-AND-RULE
The USA (collective) has ONE more chance to return to the "good ol' days" (debatable) of the post-WW2 era when everybody else was "down and out" (power/military might/influence). They MUST divide everybody else, or go down the same path as London after 1945. That WW2 had already resulted in a weakening of the European powers, for the benefit of whoever was left (grand strategy) was also already clear.
WW1 and WW2 was one global struggle with multiple layers and which merely had a 20 year gap in between.
Do we live in eternal peace interspersed by wars, or do we live in eternal war, interspersed by peace?
EURASIA
After 1945 the chasm created by divide-and-rule, was just shifted across from Western Europe to Eastern Europe. The dividing line was between the Baltic and the Balkans, drawn by OUTSIDERS. Today, instead of a great power becoming encircled resulting in "something silly in the Balkans" (after the 1890s), it is a great power becoming encroached upon, resulting in "something silly in the Ukraine" (after the 1990s). The line was drawn, again by OUTSIDERS, between the Baltic and the Black Sea. The "marching route" is clear. Who is encroaching on who is also clear. Certain people never learn, and repeat the same transparent strategy again and again, as long as others can be made to suffer the abject ill effects, they won't care about the effects of their own systemic meddling and their own marching route.
As long as Europeans remain collectively too dumb to figure out what they collectively lost with the conflagration of 1914-1945, then they will also be collectively too dumb to figure out why and how they will lose again, if "WW3" is caried out as LONG WAR on their territories, as desired by their "best fwiends" who just so happen to gain if millions of others lose. Beware of those who turn up, telling you are a "winner on the right side of history" as you sit in the ruins created by LONG WAR.
Why the desirable LONG WAR (stated by Zelensky) is desirable for the OUTSIDE POWERS as benefactors of this strategy of financing LONG/FOREVER WARS (LONG WAR = desirable for the Atlanticist strategists/SHORT WAR to settle matters quickly, for the "encircled/encroached upon" on the "inside lines" of Europe historically, or Eurasia today and as desirable strategy). This is an example of history rhyming, for those with the geopolitical/grand strategic insight. We, the current generation, are literally watching on as "history rhymes."
None of this is of course any kind of justification, apologetics for violence, or any other form of reasoning but CAUSALITY.
CAUSE.
EFFECT.
Don't like the EFFECTS? Then don't "sow" the CAUSES.
If you are living in a system which is systemically too stupid to figure out that you ARE systemically "sowing", then that is not the concern of any other individual anywhere else on the planet. Regardless of where you live, you will "reap as sown" by others in your system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The concept of an "occupation" seems to be hard to grasp.
The landgrabs after the 6-Day War were illegal according to international law. Waging a "preventive war" or a "war of choice" was not illegal, but all the subsequent landgrabs were.
According to international law, these territories are therefore still "occupied".
" ...We had three wars which we fought without an alternative. The first, the war of independence, which began on Nov. 30, 1947 and lasted until January 1949 ...The second war of no alternative was the Yom Kippur War and the war of attrition that preceded it ... Our other wars were not without an alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice ... In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation." -- Menachem Begin, Aug. 8, 1982, Israeli National Defense College
Begin stated clearly that Israel had fought three wars before which it had a "choice," meaning Israel started the wars. In legal terms, this is known as "preventive war," which is not illegal. However, taking land against international law after such a war, is illegal. Note that fluffy language like "in the noblest sense of the word," highlighted above, is not a legal term but gangsta talk.
Israel is still the occupying power.
That is what the law states. One can whine about laws, but that doesn't change a law. Everything one can come up with in defense of Israel, will automatically mean apologia for the occupying force. Everything one states, either ignores or apologizes for the stronger side in a conflict, which is enforcing an illegal occupation.
Every conversation which does not stress the fact that one side is the occupier, the other side the resistance, is biased towards imperialism.
Every news report must start with explaining who the occupation power is, so as not to confuse the timeline.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
-----------------------------------
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
§§§footnote
If you wish to know more about exactly how the British Empire was "being dismantled" [😢] then please respond...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ArmchairMagpie I'll agree with your comment as far as the "easily divided" Europeans go.
Fact: By own admission, and known to all, the USA misuses NATO as a tool to ensure its global hegemony.
For that it needs "Euroweanies" that it can manipulate.
Just enough emotionally steered "Euroweanies" who are easily manipulated in a giant "divide and rule"-game, which uses a variety of emotionally-laden topics to incite outrage, tear open old wounds (history), and/or use negative human emotions like greed or the fear of losing out, etc. to stir up trouble.
"Trouble" can then be swum in, like a fish in water.
As soon as there is some signs of more unity, the various well-funded "think tanks" and "lobby groups" (aka "strategic studies"...ahem..."centers") remind the people how "evil" the "others" still are, what they did a hundred years ago, how they "wanted to kill your grand-dadda", whatever...
Beware of the dividers.
Age-old advice: "When a man is prey to his emotions, he is not his own master" (Benedict de Spinoza).
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]"
Or as the old "insider joke" goes:
1
-
@ArmchairMagpie Mostly agreed.
As long as one is already "signed up" to NATO, there is nothing to fear.
The "Big Brotha" USA will pwotect you...
If not.
Tough.
See "poor little Ukraine".
Call this cynisism on my part, because of my personal lack of ability to change reality. Writing this, is not disrespect for the victims of war, who always have my sincere support.
I don't subscribe to any ideologies or predescribed thinking pattens, but look at historical events and compare current events to find out what age-old strategy is being implemented.
Why do I write "poor Ukraine", being "not signed up" yet?
Because if you're not "signed up" in a binding mutually beneficial alliance, you're simply "cannon fodder" for the "machine".
How do I know this?
Because the strategists said so themselves. Suitably "hidden" behind flowery formulations of course.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt...
The road to hegemony and spheres of influence is paved with blood.
There is no such thing as an innocent party, only "guilty" and "less guilty", or "bad" and "worse".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh.
And I also predicted that nobody would help "poor Ukrainians" if/when war broke out.
Why?
Because it had all happened before.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ArmchairMagpie On my comment I spoke about a "morphed NATO".
Fact: By own admission, and known to all, the USA misuses NATO as a tool to ensure its future global hegemony.
For that it needed states that it could manipulate.
Just enough emotionally steered "Euroweanies" who are easily manipulated in a giant "divide and rule"-game, which uses a variety of emotionally-laden topics to incite outrage, tear open old wounds (history), and/or use negative human emotions like greed or the fear of losing out, etc. to stir up trouble.
"Trouble" can then be swum in, like a fish in water.
Beware of the dividers.
Age-old advice: "When a man is prey to his emotions, he is not his own master" (Benedict de Spinoza).
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]"
NATO's main function of "mutual defense" has been quitely dropped in favor of becoming a grand strategy tool to keep
potential "little friends" down and "little"? (geopolitics)
Or as the old "insider joke" goes: NATO's "function" is "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out."
*When "mutual defence" becomes a secondary function, and is rated below "big power ambitions"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your "heroes" bombed the British Empire into ruin.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
1
-
The big picture...and how the little piece of the puzzle called "Mers el Kebir" fit into it.
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying a continental power or dissing it, was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings.
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better.
Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power.
In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." (end of)
There is no doubt that Washington DC is attempting to repeat this "success" (pov) in the rising powers of Asia.
The strategy can be observed to be implemented in the same way as was set up post-1900 in Europe, but in Europe the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer theory) were Great Britain and France.
Today, it is India being used in the same role as France was 100 years ago. In case of a wider war in Asia, as India is set up against China, qui bono if all lose?
The technique Washington DC employed up to the year 2000, is an almost exact repeat of the technique they used to overpower Europe around the year 1900: DIVIDE AND RULE.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Blanka1100 NATO expansion was Washington DC policy, because they feared losing the "sole world hegemon"-status to a more united/owerful Europe.
"By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen Euro-American hegemony.[41][42] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[41] There was further debate during the Presidency of Bill Clinton between a rapid offer of full membership to several select countries versus a slower, more limited membership to a wide range of states over a longer time span. Victory by the Republican Party, who advocated for aggressive expansion, in the 1994 US congressional election helped sway US policy in favor of wider full-membership enlargement, which the US ultimately pursued in the following years.[43] In 1996, Clinton called for former Warsaw Pact countries and post-Soviet republics to join NATO, and made NATO enlargement a part of his foreign policy.[44]" (wiki)
Therefore, NATO/EU needed the further "enemy" in order to keep the status quo, of a dependant Europe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All Asians should watch this.
Not only Chinese.
ASIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside powers can "surf in and skim off the profits". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS
European peoples are to daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that that end up thinking everything they do is justified, with "only a few exceptions"...
Has your nation, or your leader been "chosen as a favorite son of the West"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have with neighbors aside, or settle them fast, and don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme. Actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU today, for the gain of the outside Western Powers, just like divide and rule sacrificed your grandparents and previous Asian generations during the Era of Imperialism...
------------------------
P.S.: I cannot personally post this message myself too often, since YT autoblocks it as "spam" if I copy and paste it under videos too often. I need YOUR help. In your own interest of safety, please spread this message with regards to the age-old "divide and rule"-strategy of outside (non-Asian) powers. TY
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better.
Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power.
In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. Washington DC used the same techniques (favouritism of specific "buck-catchers") that it had previously used to overpower European states and empires. The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
-------------------------------------
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war being incrementally escalated by the West, in the Ukraine.
This war was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life, on ALL tiers, often by force, coercion, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world).
That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power).
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
The intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia (which incl. the ME), in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Weak leaders lead to hard times in the form of endless crises and wars. Deceitful leaders lead to constant dissent, which mainly benefit those powers which can stay out of mass conflagrations like war, or step in last to gain from the mutual exhaustion of all the others.
Outside powers can insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Time to set the USA right again.
“My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”
Carl Schurz, US Senator, GOP
Time to be a patriot, or according to G.K. Chesterton:
“‘My country, right or wrong,’ is a thing that no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying, ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’”
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs.
Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent.
Of course, London already knew this.
That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem:
Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900).
And so "poor little Belgium" was born.
Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"...
France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war.
The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about turn mind-control trick :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first, and the truth had to be bent to fit the policy.
Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals.
It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up.
Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights".
It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
1
-
Simon McCreath Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" without a treaty or signature on the dotted line.
What could possibly go wrong?
I assume machiavelli was rolling in his grave...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries.
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
Pitty BBC never told you...
1
-
Brits thought they were sooooo clever and make a "pig's breakfast" out of Europe, as they always did as a matter of policy.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister [rolls eyes and laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister (shortened)
No "satire" there at all.
Not "funny comedy" at all if one ends up as a "tool" of London's little divide and rule schemes.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists...
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against Germans and Russians (see Limitrophe States) and Russians against Romanians (see the Little Entente).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife. Divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Ask the affected millions what they wanted for themselves? Nah. That was below the lords...
So in 1939 Stalin and Hitler came along and made "a pig's breakfast" of the London lord's little scheme for their "divided continent" (see Secret protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact). They colluded, and made a pig's breakfast out of Poland. A pig's breakfast out of the Little Entente. The Limotrophe Staes? Right...more pig's breaksfast...
The lords wanted to play divide and rule with the continent's inhabitants indefinitely, for own gain, and in the end the UK became a junior partner and tool of Washington DC, and they lost their Empire. Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945 and a subsequent few years.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was reduced to the status of "a scrap of paper".
Awww. Sad. No nukes for the "special relationship" best fwiends. Subsequently Washington DC used British weakness and made a pig's breakfast out of British markets (economic warfare), and re-divided the world into "east and west".
Didn't anybody notice?
The world went from a divided continent, to suit the expansion/protection of the British Empire/London, to a divided world, to suit the expansion/protection of The American Century/Washington DC.
Awww...poor British Empire.
They wanted to "sow" their pig's breakfast to everybody else, and evtl. ended up "reaping": forced to eat their own words.
Lovely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The concept of an "occupation" seems to be hard to grasp.
The landgrabs after the 6-Day War were illegal according to international law. Waging a "preventive war" or a "war of choice" was not illegal, but all the subsequent landgrabs were.
According to international law, these territories are therefore still "occupied".
" ...We had three wars which we fought without an alternative. The first, the war of independence, which began on Nov. 30, 1947 and lasted until January 1949 ...The second war of no alternative was the Yom Kippur War and the war of attrition that preceded it ... Our other wars were not without an alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice ... In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation." -- Menachem Begin, Aug. 8, 1982, Israeli National Defense College
Begin stated clearly that Israel had fought three wars before which it had a "choice," meaning Israel started the wars. In legal terms, this is known as "preventive war," which is not illegal. However, taking land against international law after such a war, is illegal. Note that fluffy language like "in the noblest sense of the word," highlighted above, is not a legal term but gangsta talk.
Israel is still the occupying power.
That is what the law states. One can whine about laws, but that doesn't change a law. Everything one can come up with in defense of Israel, will automatically mean apologia for the occupying force. Everything one states, either ignores or apologizes for the stronger side in a conflict, which is enforcing an illegal occupation.
Every conversation which does not stress the fact that one side is the occupier, the other side the resistance, is biased towards imperialism.
Every news report must start with explaining who the occupation power is, so as not to confuse the timeline.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ASIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside systems can "surf in and skim off the profits". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS OR PERSONAL PRIORITIES
European peoples are far to daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive them too, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that they end up thinking everything they do is justified, with "only a few exceptions" in order to seem fair...
Has your nation, or a leader already been "chosen as a favorite son of the West"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have with neighbors aside, or settle them fast, and don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme. Actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples across all borders.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these Western "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU today, for the gain of the outside Western Powers, just like divide and rule sacrificed your grandparents and previous Asian generations during the Era of Imperialism...
------------------------
P.S.: I cannot personally post this message myself too often, since YT autoblocks it as "spam" if I copy and paste it under videos too often. I need YOUR help. In your own interest of safety, please spread this message with regards to the age-old "divide and rule"-strategy of outside (non-Asian) powers. Thank You.
1
-
Yes, whatever happened, the USA "wins".
Because what they are after is European/Eurasian disunity and division.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works."
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others.
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CorporationCorn The term "power" encompasses a wide range of qualities from population growth (inhabitants of a state), level of education (including number of scientists, mechanics, and engineers), scientific advances, political influence on neighboring states, level of industrialisation, resources within the sphere of influence, level of urbanisation/i.e. advanced society, infrastructure projects, increased GDP, trade outreach, and yes...soldiers, guns, weapons...
If you study how this "power" shifted in Europe throughout the century or so after the Napoleonic Wars, you'd also understand why Germany became "the rival in peace" after unification (1871) and industrialization in the 30-40 years after that.
It took over this "role" from France, who was the strongest continental power before that, and therefore London's "default rival/enemy in war" up to that point in time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CorporationCorn A "big war scenario" was not unavoidable.
What was fundamentally flawed was London's policy of making the strongest continental power the "rival in peacetime/enemy in war".
I'm going to write 3 comments in total, 2 of which I'm going to copy and paste from other videos, so gimme a few minutes.
Please give the logic and reasoning behind these 3 comments some thought, before answering. Thank you.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Why was this policy fundamentally flawed?
Because as the alpha male it is much wiser to take the strongest entity as "the friend", as the default setting (politically friendly, and/or a partner).
Not to make it "the rival" in peacetime, and "enemy in war", as the default setting, as London did.
Note.
The policy came first.
It existed long before Germany even existed, or "nasty Wilhelm" stepped into the scene.
It predetermined "friend" or "enemy".
It had little to do with what any German leader did politically.
Why was it wiser to make the stronger entity "a friend"? (make an Entente, alliance, or likewise)
Simple answer.
Because it saves "empires", if you have an empire to protect.
And it makes empires, if one wishes to create "empires".
Washington DC showed London how the game is best played.
Make the strongest country/state/alliance/entity the "friends". Not the "enemy"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CorporationCorn Yes, it is easy for ruler types to play "divide and rule"-games if people are different.
However, the example of the USA, composed of independent states in a union, shows that one is better prepared to address outside threats if one unites.
I would hope that the image of Europe would be "common decency" and a Constitution, and not a desire to rule others, or dominate.
On one side of the Atlantic, hundreds of thousands of men and women were sacrificed for the sake/outcome of unity...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
That left a single, dominant power in the New World, which would always unite if faced by an outside threat.
On this side of the Atlantic, millions of men and women were sacrificed in eternal wars, for the sake of division.
That eternal division left lots of "wannabe"-ruler types, and was ripe for games of divide and rule...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
easy eevee As they say, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"...
As Robert Kennedy Jr. notes about the history of the ME:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster
The USA absolutely loooooves Jihadists, as long as they don't act against the USA.
Or, that Biblical logic: "the people shall reap what your leaders have sown", or something like that...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The big picture...and how the little piece of the puzzle called "Mers el Kebir" fit into it.
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying a continental power or dissing it, was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings.
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patrickbotti2357 At the end of it all, someone "ran off" with the British Empire and the old slogan "speaking German" is just simplistic chanting for the meek, to cover up how British leaders lost their Empire through incompetence and greed.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
Sorreeee. That's what happens when you make the wrong "fwiends".
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
The only "special" thing about that "relationship" was that somebody had to be the one who had to bend over...
You see "speaking English" doesn't save anybody either :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pbotti A good comment.
Of course, it makes little sense "whining" about the course of a specific historical event, without exploring viable alternatives.
Of course such an alternative already existed.
It is even mentioned in almost every history book about wars.
Re. "viable alternatives", at the time, and easily implementable, I repeat: I find it strange how historians would conclude that it was "generals sitting in Chateaus far away from the action" which lost many battles in WW1 and early-WW2, rather than allowing front-line commanders and officers to lead from the front, given "objectives", not specific orders.
That is so true.
Lesson learnt? I fear not.
The specific orders by the Admirality, coupled with Churchill's "settle matters quickly order" had 2 main effects:
1) it took the decision out of the hands of Admiral Somerville
2) put emense pressure, by dictated orders (rather than "objectives")
Even Churchill must have instinctively grasped that it was a mistake, and he prepared 2 speeches for Parliament.
One conciliatory, the other more defiant...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wilhelm is often compared to Bismarck.
An interesting "episode" regarding "duplicity" and the way European states interacted at the time, occured in the late-1870s.
Bismarck stepped forward and offered himself as the "honest broker" (Congress of Berlin) to avoid a potential war between the saber-rattling London and St Petersburg, because of the after effects of Russo-Ottoman War of 1877/78 (San Stefano).
As a "thank you" for his efforts as peacemaker and for avoiding war, Bismarck attracted the wrath of the Russian Tzar. Russian anger for getting cheated out of the spoils of this war between Russia and the "evil Ottomans who were oppressing Christians in the Balkans" (the usual widespread "appeal to emotion" for the masses, to cover up the real aims of wars: rule/domination/interests/territory/power/etc., and in this case, St Petersburg heading for the Dardanelles), was suddenly refocussed from London onto Berlin.
Bismarck had triggered a deep feeling in St Petersburg of betrayal: after Russian neutrality had done a large share of "enabling" Bismarck's German unification, St Petersburg now felt that it was obviously time for a "reward" of sorts. Berlin should in return, "enable" further Russian expansion south at the expense of the Ottoman Empire (Dardanelles, the "warm water port"-narrative) and support St Peterburg against British, French or Austrian-Hungarian protests as they realized their long-sought ports outside of the Black Sea ("Greater Bulgaria").
Even worse, while London walked away with a reward (Cypress), Berlin got a crumpled Three Kaiser League and an angry Tzar breathing down their necks. His efforts for securing peace between Russia and Great Britain, resulted in an enhanced risk of war for millions of people in Eastern/Central Europe. All exactly as the "pat our own backs" lords of London (Disraeli/Salisbury) intended. The intention of London throwing their weight into the after-effects of the Russo-Ottoman War, and by supporting the "bad guys" (Ottoman Empire) during this war, had from the outset been to drive a wedge between the "three kaisers", which were perceived to be a threat to the own British Empire.
On analysis, it was a London move to prevent a potentally possible alliance forming out of the existing agreement between the "three kaisers"(Germany/Russia/Austria-Hungary)by driving a wedge between the three.
Is that how London rewarded their peacemakers?
Bismarck: "Once bitten, twice shy..."
The apprentice Wilhelm: "What conclusions can we draw from the above?"
Strangely enough, the same actions by Wilhelm II (1905: the Morrocan "crisis" = avoid a potentially dangerous alliance forming) is interpreted by some historians as having an "evil", or "world conquering" intent, and is widely believed.
So how should we judge the attempt to drive a wedge between potentially dangerous alliances forming? "Evil", or "normal"? Surely it can't be both ;-)
Anyway...
After the Berlin Congress peacekeeping mission, Germany ended up in the vulnerable "middle of Europe", endangered by a 2-front war, with a shattered agreement and potentially without anybody to ally with at all. Fearfull visions of the days of Friedrich must have returned, and only the rapid action by Bismarck averted a disaster. Should Berlin have simply ignored Austria-Hungary's resulting weakness after the Three Kaiser League so rapidly dissolved, Vienna might have simply distanced themselves to look for a "good deal" elsewhere. Russia maybe? A war for Germany on three fronts? His very own agreement between the three empires and kaisers, to keep the peace and which was well within the scope of the "gentleman's agreement" of the Congress of Europe, was almost turned into a complete enciclement of the country whose leaders had stepped forward as "peacemaker".
Another example of the amorality of states.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and lose is closer to what happened.
DIVIDE AND CONTROL
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels, and any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain, simply needed to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. Once "divided", there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Some examples regarding the theory in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors would offer a foothold in Europe.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have such consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement after 1895, amongst other less "valuable" suitors, was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below). The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises made"...lol
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...lol.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics sterted with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947. It is alive and well. It has surrounded every aspect of power politics on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Same with the funding of opposing European leaders and states (for example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s).
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else, while "eating popcorn and chips"...
1
-
The "Hitler argument" is too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture. Simply a look at a small pixel of the larger image, and therefore too "compartmentalized".
Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, they ALL lost.
WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and GB off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted.
WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that Atlanticists (the naval powers) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination.
In the end they ALL lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After the Cold War ended, this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards.
Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GeoffV-k1h "The RAF bombed at night..."
Nothing wrong with that, to keep the enemy "busy". It is the scale which was both unnecessary and self-destructive.
The UK strength was derived from being in a lucky historically superior geographical position, which allowed London to "manage" European affairs in ways above their actual power. With "Area Bombing", London leaders chose to destroy the "balance of power", which was the source of its own global geopolitical/grand strategy strength.
In layman's terms, GB could historically "punch above their weight", due to the geographical advantage as an island, and her own strength was derived from keeping the continent divided, and her neighbors opposed to each other.
What the UK did not do after around 1900, was to balance out the rise of her rival USA, by changing her own policy towards neighbors, from that of doing her best to create disunity (an actual London historical policy standpoint), to doing her best to create unity in Europe.
That led to the own downfall.
"Area Bombing" a "power" which could have been potentially allied with post-war to boost own strength, was self-destructive, and merely a small fraction of the the entire "big picture".
Every "victory" the UK had after around 1900, was in fact simply nails in the own coffin. "Area Bombing" was one such a "nail".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Agreed.
More to ponder...
Those who have power constantly preach the "rules based society", but the rules they preach, are nothing like the "rules" they themselves follow as guidelines...
They themselves follow "rules" like the "48 Rules of Power/Robert Greene", which are not meant to overcome the divide and rule setup of any society, even democracies, but to make use of the divisions between systems, amplify these divisions if useful, or gloss over such divisions if beneficial for the own gain, in order to win personally or for the own favored system.
For those who follow such "rules", hypocrisy or lies are not an "oversight", or "a mistake", or "accidental", but a strategy of power (see footnote).
Hypocrites draw other hypocrites into their own circles of power: by being openly hypocritical, a hypocrite exposes himself/herself, and can therefore be approached by systems of gain. This is greatly aided by media, or the internet, incl. "free speech", since hypocrisy and lying is a "protected right". Creating entire entities of professional hypocrites and professional spinners, framers, and liars thereby establishing a hierarchy of hypocrites/deceivers, especially prevallent in systems of power and gain, like politics (incl., but not limited to "liberal democracies"), and all forms of structures with an intent of gain motivation (incl., but not limited to capitalist gain models). All of these attract a potential "<20% psychos" which are proven to exist in the top echelons of power in all "intent of gain systems".
Such systems also attract natural bullies, as per observable reality.
Hypocrites, narcissistic behaviour, bullying, and Machiavellianism might cause unease in the overwhelming number of good people in every society, but these good people are usually not the ones "gatekeeping" (also a bully tactic) the most influencial political/corporate job openings, which are not voted for by the populations of "Western-style"-democracies, or in corporations which then proceed to buy their own favorable laws (lobbying, influence) and buy corruptable politicians in the "legalized bribes"-systems they had previously lobbied for...
Being openly hypocritical and deceptive is a "rule" considered a virtue, in some circles of power.
Calling these people out in an effort of shaming is pointless, since they have no shame.
Footnotes/key words for further research:
* 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
* Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
* The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
* Dr. Namie's research concerneing the 4 bully types of human being
Since all human systems of gain (incl. politics and capitalism) are made up of human beings, the above research can be scaled up to any tier, right up to the level of states/empires.
Those who justify (almost) everything which happened in the past (a divide and rule world), will justify the present.
Because the "divide and rule"-world never ended...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The powerful have used the strategy of divide-and-rule for thousands of years to drive a wedge between peoples.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe noted back then: "Divide and rule, calls the politician; unite and lead, is the slogan of the wise."
Some politicians and rulers may do this innocently and without thinking, but most know exactly what they are doing with their divisive tongues and their line-drawing divisions. It is their most successful technique that allows them to rule over us by preventing greater unity among people. This allows them to skim off enormous wealth from the gross national product that actually belongs to all people. If it is important to you, forward this message to others. Unite with those you are ordered to hate, according to Goethe because this is the counter strategy of "the wise". We should not allow them to continue winning in the same way for the next thousand years.
Divide-and-rule.
Draw lines, then set the people up against each other.
If there is a problem, blame somebody else.
That is the historical Albion's way.
Incredible how many can be deceived for so long.
In the age of European imperialism before 1945 it was mainly the British- and French Empires which kept global conflicts alive by drawing lines in favor of one group over the other. Previously it had been the "fading" empires or the "sick men" of Europe, like Portugal, Spain, or the Ottoman Empire. Later they were joined by others, in a long list: the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Russia (only bordering regions), Belgium, Italy, the USA, etc. The lines were often randomly drawn through tribes, through religious- or ethnic groups, to favor either the one, then the other. This created volatile hot spots of ethnic conflicts to use as pretext for intervention and occupation as the moral "rule maker". After 1945 the USA simply took over as global hegemony, but practicing the same strategy of rule and domination as all the others before: divide-and-rule.
------------------------------------------------------
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
SETTLER COLONIALISM
The last 500 years of European/white settler colonialism as a subsection of the divide-and-rule technique. The strategy was "farms/forts" of the stronger power and using "might is right" as guiding principle to a systemic, slow advance into the lands of ingenious peoples all over the world. Same happened in North America, Australia, New Zealand, the Levant, South America, Southern Africa, etc.
Broken promises, broken treaties, looking for excuses to make the next 'step' (ratchet principle). The only places the strategy of slow ponderous expansion failed was where the local systems were too numerous or organized (East Asia). The "template" might have various regional differences, but the end effect is always the same. Slow, step-by-step advance of the own ideology, economic systems, corporations and political power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Liberal Nation I don't have an agenda.
I just realise that if the west was more "Jesus" (do onto others, put yourself in their shoes) and less "Empire" (control freaks, self centered, arrogant, etc.) That there wouldn't be so many problems in the world.
It's one thing being strong and warding off evil, it's another misusing a position of strength to meddle, oppress, or exploit for the own benefit and be hypocritical.
The USA (and much of the west) is very subtle...
Like the proverbial mother-in-law, always smiling, always baking cookies, always keen to help out...but...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's start at the beginning.
With grand strategy.
A truism of grand strategy and at the beginning of every analysis should be the various intentions of the powers, and how they aimed to achieve their goals.
After WW1, the two remaining European Empires set up the foundation for the protection of their Empires in Europe (Versailles, St Germaine, etc.)
Empires with vast resources and therefore the strategic advantage aim to fight "long wars", slowly drawing in their superior resources, whilst expanding the war to the periphery, away from their own homelands.
GB and France were looking for "soft overbellies" (😊) to deflect the war away from their own homelands.
Those in an inferior strategic position, with limited resources, aim for "short wars" (or a series of "limited wars") building up to the final goal.
For Germany, the final goal was the SU (the resources in the Heartland/ Mackinder "Pivot of History"/Heartland Theory)
Germany had no interest in invading Norway. A neutral Scandinavia gave it everything it needed, and the last thing they wanted was to be forced to disperse resources away from their main objective.
There is your filter.
Against that (grand strategies), all theories must be tested.
1
-
In the beginning, one nation's leaders made another nation's people "the default rival in peace/default enemy in war" as a matter of policy.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany, available for download as PDF file]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war.
And so the policy makers set off to encroach upon and surround their own chosen "default rival" with a ring of "temporary best friends"...
And so the biblical "seeds" were sown, which Europe had to "reap" later.
1
-
1
-
@werewolf873
"Since World War II, during a supposed golden age of peace, the United States military has killed or helped kill some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 84 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. The United States is responsible for the deaths of 5 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and over 1 million just since 2003 in Iraq.
Since 2001, the United States has been systematically destroying a region of the globe, bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, not to mention the Philippines. The United States has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces in three-quarters of them."
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hamas, just like every single "terrorist" organisation EVER, at any point in history ever, in any geographical location ever, by any religion ever, are always an EFFECT of oppression.
The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they created themselves with own PREVIOUS political actions, as terrorists...
Terrorism/Freedom fighting (POV) is always an "effect" not a "cause."
If you live in the west, then you (personally), or your parents, grandparents or previous generations have never ever ever fought anybody your own leaders have not personally set you up against.
Try me on this one.
Name me the war, incl. this current "War on Terror", and I'll inform you how your own government created it (aka "lay the foundation").
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with (feelings). As Huxley remarked ... the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny 'failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.'..." Neil Postman.
Huxley is less well-known, but far more correct.
The information, sufficient to understand "what happened" (in history), and "what is happening today" (news/headlines) is out there. But "what happens/is happening" is drowned out by a cacophony of irrelevant information, leading the overwhelming majority of people to simply "switch of"...simply repeating "narratives" in order to fit in with their surroundings.
Majorities ending up thinking their own "narratives" are the only correct ones.
Mission accomplished.
That is what strategists aim to achieve.
"Divide and rule/conquer."
Europe has been "divided" and "ruled" over for more than a hundred years.
Around 1900:
There was an informal alliance of "English speaking races" (lol, King Edward in a letter to Theodore Roosevelt, see footnote***) taking shape, which was busy "informally nodding off" each others' conquests.
The logical conclusion with regards to that should have been that according to age-old rules, the answer would have needed to be to create an alliance of "non-English speaking...ahem...'races'..." (to quote the advocates of "English speaking races" ruling the world").
Logic/reasoning: "Balance of Power"-strategy, which is neutral and unbiased.
The fools were elsewhere.
Not even mainly in Berlin.
Almost everything else is "divide and rule/conquer".
Millions of ancillary details, to confuse and divide...
Today, the problem is not that there is too little information which is "controlled by a few 1%-ters" (Orwell).
The issue is there is too much clutter (Huxley).
Huxley correctly points out that leaders don't really have to hide/burn much with "Operation Legacy"-style deceit, one just has to make it too boring or complicated to read for the indifferent/ignorant/complacent crowds...making the deceit right out there in our faces.
The ignorant rant...
The complacent don't know or act...
The indifferent don't care.
The "cannon fodder" of history.
Around 1900:
The London lords thought they could use their geographical advantage to divide the continent, and thereby always be in a position "to rule" during crises and wars.
In the end they became a tool themselves: of the "division" of Europe by Washington DC (note, in geography "Europe" includes GB).
As the lords went about looking for tools to play "divide and rule" within other European powers/states, they became tools themselves.
***Footnote:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: Edward in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.'
An ancillary detail, which seems to have gone under in the clutter.
"Civilizing factor" of course, nothing else but the hooded language of these "few" to kill a few people every now and then, in order to earn megabucks for themselves, while convincing millions that they were the 'good cops'...
Those so convinced pay the taxes to bankroll the "cops", while the profits have always been raked in elsewhere.
Of course (reality) "military industrial complexes" have existed ever since the first blacksmith realized he could earn more by selling swords to a rich king, rather than to sell ploughs to poor farmers...
1
-
@icu17siberia The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
1
-
1
-
@sharongelfand5065 It was a part of the strategy of divide-and-rule. At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule.
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others...
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favouritism.
"Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Africa, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the behavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD"
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact. It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of. What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of those in search of profit and in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. For the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact that it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: "Divide and rule, the politician cries; unite and lead, is watchword of the wise."
Divide and rule, the USA/collective West cries; unite and lead, is watchword of the resistance.
Beware of the dividers.
They will come with their promises and allures. When these dividers come with lies, death, and misery, they are always the "good" liars, thieves, and killers in the own "(his)stories" they tell themselves. When the resistance finally re-acts, and lies, steals, and kills as a result of the previous actions of the outside dividers, then this is (quote) "evil."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rappakalja5295 But Empire need not have faded away.
Timely changes, to adapt it to changing times, and it would still exist today. Not as a "ruled top down" and imposed on others "Empire", but as a partnership of equals, suitable for the changing realities of the 20th Century.
The premise that "Empire was going to fail anyway" is faulty reasoning.
In the long term, those who "tried to defend everything, defended nothing" (Friedrich the Great)
In end effect, those who stood up for Empire "defended nothing", because Empire was lead by fools who were unwilling to adapt to changing times, and tried to cling to "the good ol' days"...
A "pound block of equals" of sorts (not stating anything exactly defined) would have been the best long term strategy, but the lords in London were not ready or willing to give up anything, so they lost everything.
The second big mistake according to the fallacy of "trying to defend everything" (external reasons for the decline of Empire) was clinging to the Policy of Balance of Power for the continent, in a rapidly changing world ("shrinking" as a result of technology late-1900s/early-20th Century).
1
-
1
-
The "biggest loser" of the systemic conflagrations that were "WW1" and "WW2" was the great divider/grand encircler London/British Empire. Around the year 1900 its lords set out to encircle (by proxy) its biggest contester: Germany.
HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books.
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source)
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies.
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
EPISODE I:
"... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
EPISODES II thru IV:
Lotsa other stuff happening.
EPISODE V:
If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003
Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice.
Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power.
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it.
The urge to deflect blame for the own actions (encirclement strategy) which backfired leading to the end of the British Empire. is human nature.
The reality is that lower tiers don't "win" anything (gain) in wars.
The higher systemic tiers "win" at the expense of the masses.
The end result is then always the same.
99% lose, and the tops of the pyramids of power (industrial, financial, political tiers) "win" bigtime...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Right from the start of the war, it bugged London and Paris that Germany could basically import all the iron ore from Sweden they needed. There was nothing they could do to avoid it, since Norway and Sweden were neutral, and for good reasons intended to remain so.
From ibiblio(dot)org
"Norway and Sweden were to be warned that their conduct as neutrals worked out in practice to the advantage of Germany; that this was the more intolerable because Germany in principle was the enemy of the independence and rights of small Powers, of which the Allies were the champions; and that in consequence the Allies reserved the right to take the appropriate action."
[End of quote]
Apparently, GB and France put pressure on Norway/Sweden, by trying to shame them into giving up their neutrality (or at least "neutral" according to International Law).
Those "poor defenseless neutrals" so "deemed to be saved by the heroes of freedom" (lol) were not impressed, and did not trust British/French sincerity in actually protecting them
From ibiblio(dot)org
"...it was still hoped [by GB/France] that the Scandinavian Powers would so interpret their obligations as members of the League of Nations as to allow Allied forces to cross their territories to help the Finns against acknowledged aggression. The result was a prolonged diplomatic wrangle. Both Norway and Sweden were genuinely desirous of helping the Finnish cause by all means short of their own implication in the war. But they consistently refused to court the fate of Poland, for whose defence the Western Powers seemed to have done absolutely nothing, by allowing Allied forces, even in the guise of 'volunteers' to cross their territory into Finland, either to preserve Finnish independence, or for their own protection against a hypothetical Russian (or German) advance..."
I wonder why neutrals came to the conclusion that the "heroes" who wanted to "protect them" had absolutely zero intention to fight to the last bullet to "protect poor neutrals"?
Weird...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ If somebody asks me I usually recommend Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding the geopolitics of Eurasia, then W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. With regards to how imperialism/militarism implements the aforementioned, one can read the classic War is a Racket, by Smedley-Butler. Stand alone suggestions regarding strategies of power are other classics like Machiavelli/The Prince, Sun Tzu/Art of War, or Clausewitz/On War.
One can add Robert Green/48 Rules of Power to the mix, and from there it isn't far to figure out how the powers implement divide-and-rule on multiple tiers: from domestic politics, and societies, all the way through to international relations. In case you prefer podcasts you can also search for these in YT since there are several channels which either read, or elaborate these books.
Regarding divide-and-rule: It inverts a lot of the logic of what is generally considered "popular/narrative history" (or "what everybody believes" and "as seen on TV") and with regards to what we are being told are the reasons for crises and wars.
1
-
@iRelevant.47.system.boycott Yes, one can only make a temporary "picture" at any particular point on the timeline, and at the time the SU/Russia, and "morphing" China with their own version of communism, and Iran (still under the imperialist control of the West until Khomeini), were deeply mistrustful of each other's agendas.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy.
The OP is about a long-term strategy of power, which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent.
The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ASIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside systems can "surf in and skim off the profits". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS OR PERSONAL PRIORITIES
European peoples are far to daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive them too, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that they end up thinking everything they do is justified, with "only a few exceptions" in order to seem fair...
Has your nation, or a leader already been "chosen as a favorite son of the West"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have with neighbors aside, or settle them fast, and don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme. Actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples across all borders.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these Western "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU today, for the gain of the outside Western Powers, just like divide and rule sacrificed your grandparents and previous Asian generations during the Era of Imperialism...
------------------------
P.S.: I cannot personally post this message myself too often, since YT autoblocks it as "spam" if I copy and paste it under videos too often. I need YOUR help. In your own interest of safety, please spread this message with regards to the age-old "divide and rule"-strategy of outside (non-Asian) powers. Thank You.
1
-
The USA/collective West is like the allegory of the unbalanced spinning washing machine. Their entire mechanism is to avoid balance, therefore exploiting eternal domestic/international crises/violence is the name of the game. The load inside totally unaware of the "Why?".
___________________
Because..."avoid" is all the machine ever does.
AVOID THE EQUILLIBRIUM
That is the sole aim of the "affairs of the city" which is per definition the system of politics.
Divide and conquer works because not everyone involved knows that they are taking on a role in a power game. That's how the strategy works. Very few people really need to understand it. In English, the principle is called "Useful Innocent/Useful Idiot." From a position of power, you can animate people (usually through money, or ideology) who play a role, but they know not what they do.
The peoples in your "neck o' the woods," have been ruled by division since the beginning.
Because it's easier to divide people based on personal differences than to unite them based on their similarities. Strategically ambivalent elites use this to their own advantage. Now the intention is simply to avoid the unity in your society, in order to "rule" over the dissenters, which is the classic "divide and conquer" principle. This strategy is kept under wraps, due to a systemic desire to be "good", and on the "right side of history", and therefore overemphasizing the actions of philanthropists, political doves, peace activists, religious leaders, etc.
At the same time the activities of political hawks sowing divisions are downplayed, relativized, apologized for, mostly by politicians and strategists as the "story tellers" of history. But also by commoners, who simply parrot the stories without thinking them through, and who are NOT privy to the overall strategy (divide-and-rule in all its intricacies and nuances).
The main interest of these people for which we have been fighting wars for centuries has been the relationships between organized systems of finance and power, and systems of resources and manpower. Because united they are the only power that could threaten this group. They must make sure that the unity of others does not happen. ... For these elites ... the greatest fear is an overall creation of a unity of technology, capital and natural resources, and labor, as the only combination that has frightened the elites for centuries. So how does this play out? Well, they have already put their cards on the tilted table. They draw their invisible lines onto society.
Today all our so-called "leaders" are too weak to create systemic unity, to avoid their "friends" simply drawing lines all over the place, which they cower down to and must obey.
Like a ratchet, one click at a time, the "marching empire." Endless wars, constant disagreements, using imperialism to stay on top. Using "levers" of lies and distrust, via power players. Creating favorites: favoring the proxies who bow down and sacrifice themselves for the mastah. Pointing fingers, everywhere else, using the POWER of the mainstream media.
Divide-and-rule/conquer.
The oldest trick in the book...
Who has the POWER? Who has always had the GEOPOSITIONAL advantage of power to rule? The GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all other "buck catchers" (tools and other instruments of POWER in the Roman era style), but could not be reached themselves at any point in a historical timeline due to a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic- or political advantage?
“Divide-and-rule/conquer” as a standard strategy of power and thus the cause of nearly all conflicts in the world connects the dots on the timeline of history. Being far from the events resulting from their own meddling and political activities and being able to reach all other regions, but could not be reached themselves.
All they want is peace, they say. Who gathers the pieces of the great wealth and systemic gains when everyone else has failed to unite?
Different terms. Different eras. Same games...
The opposition that wants unity and equillibrium in a region is the "bad guy."
We, who seek true peace and harmony, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized.
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D chess." Everything you know is a variation of reality. They are playing 5D chess with the minds of 2D checkers players, within the compartmentalized brains of people who think they are smart.
1
-
@vgstb If somebody asks me I usually recommend Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding the geopolitics of Eurasia, then W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. With regards to how imperialism/militarism implements the aforementioned, one can read the classic War is a Racket, by Smedley-Butler. Stand alone suggestions regarding strategies of power are other classics like Machiavelli/The Prince, Sun Tzu/Art of War, or Clausewitz/On War.
One can add Robert Green/48 Rules of Power to the mix, and from there it isn't far to figure out how the powers implement divide-and-rule on multiple tiers: from domestic politics, and societies, all the way through to international relations. In case you prefer podcasts you can also search for these in YT since there are several channels which either read, or elaborate these books.
Regarding divide-and-rule:
It inverts a lot of the logic of what is generally considered "popular/narrative history" (as seen on TV) and with regards to what we are being told are the reasons for crises and wars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Excellent essay.
Re. the German Navy.
There is a ton of evidence that the "narrative" of popular history is faulty or a misrepresentation of facts in order for the own side to "look better". The way this is usually achieved is the method called "lying by omitting" ("omitting" a few details, or as the average person would say "not telling the entire story").
The false narrative of the German Navy being built to "overpower the Royal Navy" or to "rule the world" (or similar variations) is an example of such false narratives.
The reality is that the German Navy was built in self-defense.
What "started it" was actually a British policy called "Two Power Standard" aimed at Russia/France.
When Germany united and became industrialized it was another British policy called Balance of Power (** see below) which made Germany the "default rival in peace/enemy in war" (taking over from France, the previous default rival/enemy in war for The British Empire).
Or one could say that by defeating France, the newly united Germany "gained" a default enemy in London/Empire.
As you explained, GB refused any kind of mutually protecting/beneficial treaty citing yet another British policy (this time Splendid Isolation).
What is often forgotten? London also refused any kind of neutrallity agreement (the "narrative" re. The Haldane Mission is false: Haldane was not given full negotiating powers by London, which "dragged their feet" re. ratification, raising the fear in Beelin that London was merely toying with Berlin in an effort to torpedo the next German Naval Act from passing).
Why? In their own eyes, London considered themselves the "balancer of powers" for the continent, and they considered continental states as "a scale" which could be "hopped onto" to effect outcomes.
German leaders therefore set out to protect the German Empire and their own citizens by building a Risk Fleet (a clearly defined term).
There never was an intention to outbuild the RN at all.
Up to that time, the Royal Navy had a history of going around the world "bomb(ard)ing and blockading" everybody who stood in the way of their own selfish expansion. So the intention to protect Germany was not "evil" or "looking for trouble" (sic.) as it is mostly represented in history books.
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stansearcheslife6363 It "started" quite innocently, way before WW1.
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
[From the Britannica website]
The Germans, became "the rival/enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
Make the strongest country/alliance the rival, and "balance it out".
Nothing personal. It could be France one day, Russia the next. It could be "alliance x" one day, it could be "alliance y" the next.
"Temporary friends" one day, "temporary rival/enemy" the next.
After 1871, and especially after German industrialisation, it was simply Germany/the Dual Alliance.
A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.
It came first before all other considerations.
It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding
1) alliances (or no alliances)
2) treaties (or no treaties)
3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord)
4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle)
5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint)
6) when to engage in arms races
7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences/arms limitations or during international political differences.
Go over your history, and spot the "handwriting"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correct.
For a few "likes", the morons and liars who ruined Empire are being built up to "hero status"...
Harris was a liar and a scam artist. He lied to the British people about the effectiveness of Area Bombing (aka the policy of killing 'enemy' population).
Although he was fighting on the better side (against utter evil), he nevertheless allowed himself and his talents as organizer and a leader of men to be misused for a policy which had the direct intention of sending soldiers to kill civilians.
He should have refused, and it would have had no impact on the Allied war effort whatsoever.
After the war was over, he became extremely unpopular, almost an outcast. He lied to the public in an effort of justifying the many deaths (not only civilians, but also the 55,000 British and Commonwealth airmen).
One blatant lie concerned Harris' claim that "Bomber Command destroyed a third of all submarines before they were completed".
Here is the truth: Gröner's book (ISBN 3-7637-6215-9) on the Kriegsmarine lists all German ships ordered during the war, incl. the roughly 1,400 submarines ordered or started (1162 completed during WW2). On pages 85-100 , the book lists every single submarine, and it's fate. Only 58 German submarines were destroyed as a result of air raids, and only a portion of these were destroyed by the RAF "area bombing" city centers, with "spillover" sometimes hitting something of value
The overwhelming majority was by US daylight precision bombing raids.
Now, that a far cry from the "one third" claimed by Harris for his Bomber Command.
Anybody who bases his opinion on Area Bombing, according to a lie, is therefore misguided.
On top of that, Harris also stole credit where credit was due, from the airmen of the USAAF. Like a thief, he simply claimed that his orders had played a huge role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, by stealing the hard labor of others.
He simply claimed the destruction caused by US precision bombing as his own, and used it to justify fighting a war on civilians.
So?
Should we admire liars and scam artists?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Ensing also shared a photo of former US President Donald Trump with a reflection of a lion below him with the words, “It will be biblical.”
The YouTuber also tweeted “there’s not enough popcorn in the world for what’s about to happen”, on the day of the riot, clarifying a short time later she was referring to “the amount of corruption about to be revealed in our government”.
“As usual, the left twists our words,” she wrote.
Sephora, which contracted Ensing through the third-party rewardStyle platform, said it had been “recently made aware of concerning behaviour by Ms Ensing on her social platforms”, in a statement to The Hill.
“Most recently, she made light of the violence and tragic loss of life at our nation’s Capitol last month,” Sephora said.
“For this reason, we made the decision to cease all programming with her indefinitely, including having the video she created through an external vendor, taken down.”
Sephora said Ensing’s political views did not play a role in them ending her contract.
“Any claim that this decision was made on the basis of political or religious beliefs is inaccurate, we respect each individual’s right to have their own perspectives and freedom of expression,” it said."
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh no no no... it was certainly "justifiable".
Asking whether something was "justifiable" while there was a war going on, sets the wrong precedent...
But, was it *wise*?
All the while the Allies were wasting their time and money bombing Germany, in the single most expensive undertaking of the war, Stalin was laughing his arse off.
While Churchill was elaborating how cities were flattened, and "soft underbellies" were invaded, Stalin was using ground forces to actually create a new status quo in Europe.
Too bad.
The war was over.
GB was bankrupt, still munching on war rations long into the 1950s, lost their precious Empire, defaulted on their debts, and by 1948 couldn't even handle a little snowstorm.
400 years of empire building wasted in one lifetime.
From the unmistakable nr. 1 in "ruling the world" (1900), to "3rd fiddle" and US debt slave in 1945.
Ah well. Reap what you sow...
Stalin knew that every outrageously expensive Lanc was "4 tanks" (4 Merlin engines), and ONLY ground forces created facts.
Wonder why he was smiling all the time...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thevillaaston7811 Loop back to my first comment.
The main benefactor of GB and Empire financially ruining itself, was Stalin and communism. Followed by the USA.
GB should have declared war in 1939, then stood on the sidelines while Nazis and commies slug it out, aiding whoever seemed to be losing just enough not to collapse.
That way, the Eastern Front would have stablized somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea in 1943/44, and the western Allies could have captured all of western and central Europe, and the Balkans.
Imagine those commie crooks post-war without German scientist, rocket technology, advanced radar, nerve gas and all the other technology they captured in their drive into central Europe...
In 1941, we owned Stalin and his criminal regime NOTHING.
Not a single Pound and not a single drop of blood.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a dumb slogan, beause once the common enemy is defeated, you're still stuck with an enemy, aren't you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thevillaaston7811 "Britain dropped 48% of the bombs dropped on the german oil industry..."
Good, you are finally getting my point...
"...and created the 2nd Tactical Air Force for close air support ."
That is the "close support" I've already mentioned.
Like I said, the ONLY worthwhile forms of use of bombing was key industry (an obvious choice for WW2 being oil), interdiction, and close air support.
..
Every bomb intentionally aimed at a city center was a wasted effort, and the Bomber Command men who died doing so sacrificed in vain, since it did NOTHING to hasten the end of the war.
It did a lot to hasten the end of Empire (financial ruin), but nothing to end WW2.
Stalin, YOUR hero herding "women and kids" into Gulags, said "thank you very much", and after WW2 kept on fighting your Empire.
Well, who would have guessed that a bank robber and mass murderer would go back on his deals...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My advice to the leaders of the BRICS nations would be to always doubt the "offers of entente/rapprochement/alignment/alliance" originating from the Atlanticists' sides..
The issue is that these "offers" do not solely stem from the desire for peace, but are driven by the desire of Washington DC elites to CONTROL the rest of the planet (Atlanticism).
Therefore, guard well what has been achieved so far with the SCO/BRICS.
Even if these US "think tanks" who make such offers have benevolent intentions, they are not in control of Washington DC/Pentagon, London City. The intention of these outsiders is to get into a "system" (strategy: "center of the chessboard") and then break it up from the inside. Show interest to "join" (sic.) but then get on the inside. Then...break it up (see Brexit) once an own aim has been achieved (for GB it was the growth of the economy, after joining the EU, after the economic ruin in the UK of the 1970s). After the own recovery was achieved, the "system" then turns against those who aided them in achieving that goal.
The USA already did this in WW1, to contribute greatly in the "break up of Europe", with the stipulations for the Armistice (1918), the 14 Points/Versailles, thereby taking over the role London played before that (pre WW1/WW2). How does an outside system of power apply divide-and-rule to already divided [groups]?
The outsider leverages the dissent with favoratism.
The outsider picks a side. The outsider picks a "chosen one", making up some or other excuse.
The outsider attempts to gain an advantage if others are in crisis, have differences, engulfed in wars, or can't agree on how to split a cake...
The outsider provides support in the form of money to the chosen one or propaganda creating "good sides/bad sides" arguments everywhere, in which the chosen one is the default "good side"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christopherlees1134 Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had the global influence of the Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
No, I didn't just make that up.
It is what happened.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Excellent analysis.
The big picture of grand strategy makes Kursk an ancillary detail though.
In the late 20th century and early-21st century, the EU morphed from the example it intended to set for the world, into just another "empire" in search of systemic expansion, [see footnote] subjected to the whims of the "buck passer" USA, which was "pointing fingers" at another state/power and claiming this state (Russia) is in search of territorial expansion...
It did so, right in front of the eyes of half a billion EU subjects, very few noticing this "shift.".
This is history rhyming.
Today, the EU is led by a bunch of weak and pathetic "leaders", and these leaders are deceiving millions of its own inhabitants.
Oldest trick in the book.
Simply "exchange" a concept in geopolitics (territorial expansion = bad, bad, but the own systemic expansion = "the right side of history, always") and millions of people are then deceived by their own brain functions, because they are enamored by their own ideology and systems, and suddenly cannot think straight, and are deceived by the "right/wrong"-dichotomy...
Footnote: NATO = a state within a state, and a state of affairs on the "chessboard" (grand strategy).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not only Churchill, but an entire network of "old boys" stiff-upper-lipped Empire into ruin...
Because there's always a big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
[britannica & balance-of-power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world.
Note: nobody in Europe ever applied for this "job".
It was simply imposed on the continental powers, decided behind closed doors by a few London lords without negotiations or accords with those so "divided"...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to play "balancing games" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if the eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...you loose your empire to the new kids in town...
From the unmistakable "Nr.1" in 1900, down to "merely on par" with Washington DC after WW1, down to "third fiddle" during the Cold War. All in less than a single lifetime...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. The world was divided in "East" and "West".
And down went the British Empire too...
1
-
@rappakalja5295 Whoever said "do nothing"?
Of course not.
If you have two enemies, who hate each others guts, then don't interrupt them
We shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win)
We should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary to aid D-Day, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why it shouldn't have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion...
Why everything should have been done so that the war lasts as long as possible, in order that both sides become exhausted...
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
1
-
@solologanuk @Rappa Kalja Whoever said "do nothing"?
Of course not.
If you have two enemies, who hate each others guts, then don't interrupt them
We shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win)
We should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary to aid D-Day, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why it shouldn't have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion...
Why everything should have been done so that the war lasts as long as possible, in order that both sides become exhausted...
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
1
-
China Russia Everyone is guilty....
Today, in the USA, there are two well-meaning policies which have been turned into tools of racism.
One is the War on Drugs, and the "tough approach".
The other is the Plea Bargaining system.
Both have been utterly corrupted into tools of racism.
The first even to the point of claims that Nixon intentionally "started it" in order to fight his political opponents, blacks and "hippies" (aka hippies as "progressives"). He and his advisers knew that these predominantly smoked pot, and if "rounded up" could not vote against him...."clever" as fans of fascism would say...
The other being the wide scale use of plea bargains to intimidate innocent people (hint, hint...mostly young blacks profiled as a result of the War on Drugs, see above) into accepting a lower sentence, by counselling them that fighting for justice might result in losing, and a higher sentence...
Again..as fascist would say...veeeery smart.
Two butterflies with one swat.
In 'Murica, you can have your cake and eat it: be a fascist, a rascist...and easily and plausibly blame victims.
What that has to do with Germany of the 1930s?
It was the same thing. In the early-1930s commie hordes stormed through the streets of Germany...let's call them...ahem...."Antifa"...lol
Those who opposed them were the "good guys", let's call them Proud Boys or whatever...lol
By 1939, all the Germans saw was safe streets, and "commies" who just happened to be Jews, in Guantanamo.
Same as today, as Americans see all those criminal blacks ...cough, cough...."getting what they deserve.
ROTFL
Why are you criticising the Germans?
Even the Bible says "take the plank from your own eyes first".
Where do you live, my dear schoolboy?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tommackling I can see you've done some in-depth research. Yes, nothing is as it seems: our "empires" are empires of lies and deceit on all tiers. The majority of good people can do nothing to stop these sociopaths and narcissists who rule the world by division. You probably heard about the following, but I'll add them any way in case you wish to check it out for further research:
1) 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
2) Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
3) The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
4) Dr Namie's research revealing the "Four Bully Types"
This explains the dark side of our ruling elites well. What are our "globalists" today after WW2 who control our politicians like puppets, were the "internationalists" (before 1945) and the quote in the OP is from one such an internationalist (McKennan), one of those characters who pull the strings behind the scenes. How the divide and rule setup employs tools (democracy/capitalism).
The "divide and rule" strategy gives millions of people the illusion that they are struggling for an own cause, whilst actually depleting their own energy fighting for the causes of other, higher powers...
Just like "democracy" gives voters the illusion of choice, only to set them up in a collective "divide and rule"-setup, in which influence/TRUE power is funneled overwhelmingly in one direction: upwards.
Just like capitalism, gives advocates the illusion of chance, only to set them up in a collective "divide and rule"-setup, in which wealth is eternally funneled overwhelmingly in one direction: upwards.
Reality: Empires use and abuse human beings as on all tiers as...
- walls and barriers
- as proxies for the own gain
- as tools (instruments of power)
- as potential "staging areas" for future own use
- as "extensions" of the own power (or increased "reach" for the imperialist power)
On that gloomy note 🙂
Cheers
1
-
1
-
@tommackling The Mudsill Theory: The GEOPOSITIONAL ANALYSIS
This theory as observation of events over a long period of time, as the "cheap pool of labor" in order to keep the cost of production down (a bully tactic). What is "fair" does not concern the power players and those who wish to CONTROL the flow of the resources, the planet's ONLY determining factor, which cannot be miraculously increased, with a snap of the finger.
It is not money which is the "root of all evil", as they would wish you to believe.
That is the "cover story".
It is the resources which are limited, and it is these resources which POWERS wish to CONTROL.
Money, esp. fiat currency, can be printed.
The resources remain constant, and can only be increased incrementally, in small amounts over a long period of time (mining, industry, allocation of resources). Therefore the only function of "feds" (FSB) is to ensure that not so much money is printed, so as to undermine the entire reason for its own existence. If too much is printed, it will inflate away the CONTROL they wield over the entire system.
The Mudsill Theory: A GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Those who wish to CONTROL the resources are not the politicians.
The controllers are in ingroup, and act in unison, and as George Carlin has explained, "they KNOW what is good for themselves," meaning that it goes without meetings to know what is good for their own system. As long as the systemic actors act as collaborative effort, such efforts are rewarded. If those seeking gain however, should ever, EVER, try to scam their own kind from the own tiers of power (see Bernie Madoff), there WILL be consequences and such actors will be outcast.
On the international tiers, all empires need smaller entities to do the work.
Especially "dirty work" so the empire may keep its "hands clean" (strategy of power). The rotten apples are not coincidental, or merely unavoidable, because that's how ALL the top tiers eventually gain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PragerU is not telling the whole story.
They are using a propaganda method called "lying by omitting".
Here is what happened, and the timeline is important.
It is Miss Chow who "started it" by wanting to restrict fellow Americans' unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and happiness" and trying to impose her own convictions onto others .
Trying to restrict another American's rights, not based on a factual argument (say, restricting gun rights because of the many deaths), but using one's own "feelings" is un-American.
That means not understanding basic rights , as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
She didn't choose for herself.
She made a political decision (simulated of course) that impacted others and that goes against the spirit it of separation of church and state as desired by the founding fathers.
She did not only "abstain", which is her right to do.
She hid behind her Bible, stating that is what made her choose the way she did. Obviously, it is her own convictions, but she blames her "god"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The distorters of history lie (by omitting) about everything. Even the Bible they claim to love so much....
When one does wrong, it doesn't matter how one justifies these wrongs.
Or, the true meaning of the Biblical "reap the whirlwind".
In the Bible (Hosea), Israel allied with the devil (Assyria), rather than trust in God, and subsequently lost their worldly "empire" (Hosea).
The biblical wisdom of not allying with evil (Stalin/communism) has been distorted over time, to become a justification for own actions ("reap the whirlwind" = punishment).
A fallacy.
It is only half the story, or "lying by omission".
Because "evil" has even less scrupples than oneself, and therefore allying with evil will mean that one will get screwed over by the devil one has allied with.
Read Hosea.
Even if one is an atheist, these wisdoms are based on thousands of years of human observations.
By own admission, GB allied with the devil (Stalin), and then set off to destroy the German people, rather than letting the two devils (Hitler and Stalin) "slug it out" to mutual destruction on the Eastern Front, while concentrating on the own priorities (Western Desert, Battle of the Atlantic, etc.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 It's not about accuracy.
It's about choosing the right targets.
Here, the USAAF emphasis on a few key industries was spot on.
Oil.
Infrastructure.
Hit again and again, that did have an impact and contributed greatly.
Not even a "hindsight"-argument, but given Europe's lack of raw materials (making mass production illusionary), also a no-brainer.
Why do you think the Germans didn't try to build a million trucks or "25,000 Panzer IV's rather that 2,000 Tigers"? (a typical rhetoric used by uninformed historians, and parrotted by uniformed kids)
Correct answer.
Because if they had built a million trucks they would only have had tires for 200,000 (no rubber)...and if they had built 25,000 Panzer IV's they would have needed to pull them around on the battlefield with horses (no oil).
Logical conclusion?
Don't bother building 1,000,000 trucks, and if you have little fuel and fewer soldiers would you rather see them in a Tiger or a Panzer IV?
Yeah.
Kinda "no brainers".
But hey.
I bet you thought the Germans were too stupid to figure out how mass-construction worked...
No, they weren't.
The autarky measures of the 1930's forbade the use of imported material in all armaments, meaning that quality was going to be given priority over quantity as a production philosophy.
All a result of a lack of raw materials.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 You are not reading what I write.
I've written the following several times.
GB (London lords) got two chances to save their Empire (and as an added benefit, save European dominance in world affairs.
First chance to change the own "attitude problem" of trying to (strategy) "divide the opposition", was "around 1900", and the second chance after WW1 proved the futility of their own strategy of trying to "balance out" the continental powers.
All London should have done was follow the logic of the old master Sun Tzu, by creating an overpowering mutually beneficial hegemony in Europe, which could then have stood up to the American Century (economy).
With Versailles Washington DC had already got their "foot into the door" of European affairs. Like in the movies of that "persistent saleman" who puts his foot in the door to stop you from closing it :-)
Who let the "salesman" in?
By the time Hitler came along, it was too late for that. Breaking Munich prooved that he was not only a despicable man, but also a liar who couldn't be trusted. Same with all the other opportunists and despots Europe had created, by trying to lock others out of potential success (not only Versailles, but Saint Germaine, Triannon, etc.)
When the time came to oppose Hitler, nobody was willing to unite against Germany, because Hitler had been giving "leverage", and was always going to be in a position to make better "offers" to the losers of the post-WW1 reshuffling...
And Stalin?
No.
His "offers" for alliances were fake. Stalin had no intention of honoring whatever "deal" he could have (potwntially) signed with GB/France for so-called "peace", and the Churchillian version of history is plain wrong. That was simply political populism on the part of Churchill for political (own carreer) gain, since he was an outsider trying get back in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Why bother?
You don't admit the reality at the time, meaning that like London in drew the wrong conclusion in 1941/42, you are still drawing the wrong conclusion today.
If one doesn't accept reality, one won't accept that a mistake was made.
There were not "2 sides" but rather several conflicting agendas.
Even in war, as well as during peace, "a side" doesn't exist, irrelevant of what the "history books" tell us.
Reality? There were "3 sides" on the "side" of the so-called "Allies" alone.
That makes a large part of all your comments comment re. "sides" a "false premise" (please google false premise" in case you're not familiar with the concept).
Sad reality?
In WW2 there were three "sides" on the "side" of the "winners" alone, and who would really win would be decided after the war, by boring men in boring back rooms making "deals".
No leverage = your "side" would lose.
"Area bombing" Germany out of existence would have 2 "winners" only.
The American Century.
Communism.
The British Empire in the form of "London", which advocated it, would not be one of the "winners" of it's own strategy of "flattening entire cities", when the war was over, despite what all the emotional argumentation wishes to claim.
Before the USA joined the war (not clear before 1941) London's aim should have been to at least keep the "on par" position it still had in the 1930's with the USA.
After the USA joined WW2 it was not about remaining "on par", but at least becoming the number 2 on the world stage.
By foolishly and unneccessarily "allying with the devil" (chest thump, chest thump...look at me....how "cool") London made sure it would be "third fiddle" and a Washington junior partner when the war was over.
London foolishly defied Biblical logic (and more down to earth strategy), and lost their Empire.
Don't for a minute try to claim that that was intentional, or "part of the (London) scheme".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Seeabove re. "strategy".
Here follows the point "implementation":
Firstly, I'd like to stress that "suggesting an alternative timeline" for the war isn't possible. Few things are as unpredictable as war. Therefore, I prefer to suggest an alternative grand strategy, based on the obvious reality that something went wrong in early-1942. Not morally, but a predictably entirely false premise.
Secondly I suggest not resorting to simplistic hindsight arguments like "we should have nuked Moscow in 1945". Obviously, in 1942 nobody could make such predictions, so I will stick to information available to the decision makers at the time they took these decisions.
So in this "alternative history", most major events up to early-1942 remain about the same. Up to the point the decisions were made (Area Bombing Directives) to devote most of the RAF Bomber Command effort towards the outrageously expensive and resources consuming Area Bombing of entire cities.
Irrelevant of the many "advantages" pointed out by Bomber Command fans, of which many are easily countered fallacies or misdirection, Area Bombing was folly from the outset (see all my other comments relating to this).
So why was that choice wrong?
In a nutshell.
The choice to "flatten Germany" was a geopolitical mistake, because in the past GB/Empire had actually been "set up" to be protected in Europe, by "balancing powers". Therefore, destroying a power, or several powers, or permanently dissing them, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be exploited to overpower London/GB/Empire.
It was the fact that powers were balanced, which gave London more leverage than the weight of its economy or population numbers justified. In the same way that nukes today give a country political leverage today, London used the "balanced powers" on the continent to make up for its lack of overall population, GDP, etc. on a global sscale.
Re. the reality of the big picture re. the world justvas a reminder:
GB had three rivals, not one (see initial comment).
1) US Corporatism which was after Empire's juicy markets
2) Communism (intent on overpowering all empires, and capitalist societies
3) Fascism (various national agendas as determined by the authoritarian leaders of the seperate countries).
Keeping this in mind, and of course not knowing that the USA would join the war in 1941, we therefore have first start off in June 1941, on the assumption that the USA would not join the war (no hindsight).
Answer: For 1941 remain benevolently neutral, favoring the SU, but without making any political compromises. Concentrate on protecting own possessions (North Africa/Battle of the Atlantic/etc.).
As this alternative war progressed (note the assumed "USA not joining") stay out and let the two "slug it out".
Strategy = do not needlessly expand the war binding more own resources/forces, and make sure by all means that no side wins. An example of not wasting own energy/resources on sidelines, would be not invading Persia for example.
Further example of how this looked like in practice: deliver defensive arms to the SU, no excessive bombing of German industry (except construction yards, a few pinprick attacks to gain experience, and military bases).
In early-1942 that changed of course.
Keep the above the same, and follow the US suggestion to focus on a few key industries (esp. oil). Note the added advantage: this would preserve crucial British/British Empire resources (mainly financial) to be able to stand up to the American Century after the war was over....yes. Let's be as positive as Churchill, who realized that with the USA's entry, there was no way the Axis powers were going to win, despite the many to be expected setbacks.
As far as propaganda re. "all Germans are Nazis", was concerned: Focus on emphasizing that it is known that not all Germans would be considered Nazis, and not all Axis countries as collectively evil. Spread the word that "freedom, liberty, democracy" is the main goal, and all defectors would be welcomed.
Then either 1944 or 1945, D-Day.
Focus on getting to Berlin asap, "shoot Hitler like a snake", as well as every Nazi in sight, gather in as many volunteers from the liberated nations (incl. Germans minus their leadership), and get as far east as possible asap. Liberating Warsaw, Prague, Budapest...
At around this point (after a successful D-Day and entry into Germany), make Stalin a demarcation line offer, while his forces were still being battered to bits (by the "88mm guns not removed from the Eastern Front" 😉) somewhere between the Baltic and the Black Sea.
Without the substantial Lend-Lease focussed on logistics, every Soviet advance would have been followed by long lulls as supplies had to be carted forward mainly by foot or horse.
In the face of mounting losses and little gain, Stalin would not have had many alternatives. Even the "Stalin would have joined the Nazis if we hadn't made him an ally-argument is fallacious. Yes, he would have, but that didn't depend on Stalin, but on the Axis Powers. Stalin was a sellout and crooked turncoat, and would have changed sides anyway irrelevant of whether he was a full ally (with a pocket full of US/British promises) or just a co-belligerent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jsatko You can actually google the answer, because "conservative" actually means an urge to stick to the status quo.
The status quo is obviously wrong if core human values as stated in the Bible (do onto others, thou shalt not lie, steal, etc.) are not adhered to.
These Christian values are smart, because ignoring them are often at the beginning of causal chains of escalation, which sometimes end in war.
What counts on the micro level (families, society), also counts for the macro level (states, alliances).
Or, "not doing to others" is then "reap what you sow".
Just look at the world today. Can you name me a single crisis or war that we did not cause ourselves due to the arrogance of power?
Causality is not forgiving.
1
-
1
-
@matsjonsson9492 Despite your objections, the core issue is still how US meddling and wars for oil (and strategic dominance) have escalated problems in the ME again and again, ever since the Eisenhower administration decided to ignore the Soviet offer to allow the region to be neutral.
Instead, the Americans (plus their lapdogs GB, France and Israel) have turned the entire region into a war zone, with the intention of destabilizing it, and using the rivalries of the local population as TOOLS for conquest (Google the policy of "divide and rule/conquest").
You are free to make a historical counter argument, on why you think that 9/11 was not blowback, as a result of own meddling.
[while you're at it, read up on "divide and conquest", because not knowing or caring about history, doesn't protect you from consequences of others actions]
1
-
1
-
Who gains if there is disunity everywhere else in the world? The deceivers, obfuscators, narrative creativity fans, spinners, framers, all the way over to the outright liars (by omitting). All those who wish to gain from the division of others, will twist themselves into a knot in order to AVOID answering.
It is their entire nature. Avoid unity everywhere, avoid answering questions, avoid addressing the effects of their own politics, avoid addressing the effects of their own actions, AVOID, VETO, DENY, BLOCKADE... and then remain quiet with regards to the roles they played in fostering divisions all over the globe, even within their own peoples...
This can only be achieved from a unique position of the higher ground: geography/power. It has nothing to do with being "right".
Most of our history is too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture. After around 1900, Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, ALL Europeans lost. WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy or "Who is the top dog in Western Europe?", and a balance of power between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and Great Britain off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted. WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that the naval powers (GB and the USA) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination (see footnote). Side with the weaker power, to AVOID unity and a single great power rising in Europe.
The Big Picture. Yet, for you, the little minion, they have neatly "compartmentalized" the history lesson you must rote-learn for class...
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quite or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
In the end ALL Europeans lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After the Cold War this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards. The new "Iron Curtain" will soon be declared, under some or other fancy term, to divide the eternal "good guys" and the new "bad guys".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How did the USA go from an obscure colony to the world's nr.1 in the space of a relatively short time.
To discover how it happened in "a blink of an eye" on the timeline of modern history, let's go next level.
The impact of strategies on history.
These strategies are universal, and it therefore does not matter who one quotes, or what level of society or politics one refers to (micro- v. macro level dynamics in hierarchies).
"Observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership." Deng Xiaoping
To loosely quote strategy, Washington DC just had to wait long enough until their rivals messed up.
On the "empires"-level the USA's strategy starting around 1900 was fairly simple:
1) keep European powers as "divided" as possible, implemented by whatever means possible, but mainly using favoratism.
2) wait for ALL the others to fail.
Would such a strategy, whether planned or the unintentional effect of prior actions guarantee a success? Answer: NO
There is never a guarantee for anything in strategy, but if one has the geographical advantage (distance from squibbling Europeans, coupled with an own rising population, raw materials, a rapidly gathering industrial/financial base, increased education = increased innovation, all constituting "power"), then the US elites in their "preferred system" of corporatism could simply sit it out.
What was effected by favoratism was a "pecking order" of "friends" with access to Washington DC.
It does not matter how one justifies this political pecking order, because "justified" = an appeal to emotion = difficult to objectify.
What is important, is THAT a pecking order of European powers with access to Washington DC was established over a relatively short time around the year 1900.
Note here: A little-known detail is that one of the first US choices in this "pecking order" of European powers was actually Imperial Russia (by the Theodore Roosevelt administration). Why would the USA possibly "favor" Russia as a "choice"?
My suggestion: Look at a map every now and then, and consider the European balance of power at the times, and the aims and goals of these European powers at the time...
Is this an unimportant little detail, because it "did not happen"? No, this is VERY important, because it reveals strategies.
Simply saying "it did not happen, therefore it is not important" is a gross misrepresentation of history, which will then result in a gross misrepresentation of current events.
Anyway.
Any European division = a so-called "win - win" for the USA.
To the USA it did not matter what happened in Europe.
Whether Europeans ended up happily singing Kumbayah, or tore each other to shreds...it would be a "win" for somebody in the American Century. As long as there was no common European policy or overly powerful alliance in a comprehensive European security agreement (of sorts) which could potentially be directed at US plans to expand, there was nothing on the "elite"-level in the USA to worry about...
Note also that all of the above solely deals with the "elite"-level, so there is no need for anybody to feel personally offended.
Since no elites ever asked the "average American", there is also no need for any "average American" to feel offended on behalf of these decision makers, unless they choose to be. Also true, for all historical and current events, and for all citizens of all states.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are you a citizen of the world, and wish to contribute a small share to end the grip the global elites have on the narrative of history?
Are you American, or European? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from the multitude of military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any platform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Why do we know this? Because good people have been voting, and posting, and debating, and using their freedom of speech, and protesting for hundreds of years, but the grip the elites have on the plebs has NEVER changed.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unraveling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting all international big brands.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small local companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever and whenever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone," or "but, but, but...your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be perfect...
Methodology: JDI and make it a long term lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk trend, because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate interests. Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small local companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Do you wish to fight meddling globalist empires?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influential GLOBAL ELITES only REALLY start "caring" (sic.) when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage.
Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating families. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Never a "price tag" for own actions...
Right?
WRONG
Brits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends".
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"...
And after the war ended?
They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946).
Did they ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not.
Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next.
Hop, hop, hop...into extinction.
Sad...
A "nation" which needs to bomb women and kids to "have hope" or inspiration even during hard times, does not deserve to "rule the world".
The post-WW2 bankrupcy was not only financial, but also moral...
Good riddance to "ruling the world" then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS/GLOBALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS/MILITARISTS. Their branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
1
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
This is the theory.
According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules.
According to the concept of "meaning of words" all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life (50% for us, the minority), on ALL tiers, often by force, coercian, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world).
That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power).
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
blue222blue Yup. Al Copone (Israel).
Well-dressed (facade), rich (GDP), treats his wife (citizens) nicely. Always surrounded by "lawyer types" (laws).
But, check behind the facade, or dig around to discover the skeletons in his basement and discover the depths of his crimes.
Again. No "anti-Semitism", because I can make a similar comparison to almost every single nation on this planet, with VERY FEW exceptions.
The reason I'm dumbing down my comments, is to address the obvious low IQ of the reader. I'm simply adapting my writing style, in order to get my point accross.
Yup. Even "laws" a state makes can be DISGUSTING.
For example the "Land Absentee Law". Even though it "doesn't mention any specific groups" [ to address the grievances of the other commenter] it is VERY CLEAR WHO IS MEANT.
It doesn't HAVE to "mention any names", if you look at HOW THE LAW IS APPLIED.
GET IT?
[Oh, and how convenient if OTHER LAWS make sure that the "absentee" in this law also remains "absent"].
CAUGHT OUT. GANGSTER.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The minute some or other leaders in Europe step forward to unite people overregionally, and start speaking of concepts like the "common European home," the dividers will immediately work on their own counterstrategies (see the Clinton admin in the 1990s).
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoritism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is. Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Regardless of the "system of gain" in question, which come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
Divide and rule/conquer creates "favorite sons" (Ukraine/Israel) on the one side, and "scapegoats" on the other as "default rivals/enemies" (Russia/Palestine).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 1945, the crowds understandably cheered the end of the war...
Meanwhile as the crowds cheered and jeered, in the background, big daddy USA ate up the British Empire:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Like like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon"...
Where are all the BBC documentaries informing the public about these postwar events?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Start pulling the rug from underneath their feet...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
There is a simple way to avoid making such a mistake of judging past events through the moral prism of today.
That is if those doing something at any point in time did it openly, or in secret...in other words, "tried to hide" what they were doing.
In case of the latter, you can definitely call it a wrong, even looking back in history.
The other is simple "Biblical wrongs", like stealing, murder, etc.
These things were already considered wrong 2,000 years ago, so a historical figure should have received the message by 1900, 1920, or other recent historical point in time...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans also do t care about the War on Drugs, which turns large regions of Central America into proverbial "sh*tholes"...
"The war on drugs is a campaign,[6] led by the U.S. federal government, of drug prohibition, military aid, and military intervention, with the aim being the reduction of the illegal drug trade in the United States.[7][8][9][10] The initiative includes a set of drug policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs that the participating governments and the UN have made illegal. The term was popularized by the media shortly after a press conference given on June 18, 1971, by PresidentRichard Nixon—the day after publication of a special message from President Nixon to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control—during which he declared drug abuse "public enemy number one". That message to the Congress included text about devoting more federal resources to the "prevention of new addicts, and the rehabilitation of those who are addicted", but that part did not receive the same public attention as the term "war on drugs".[11][12][13] However, two years prior to this, Nixon had formally declared a "war on drugs" that would be directed toward eradication, interdiction, and incarceration.[14] Today, the Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates for an end to the War on Drugs, estimates that the United States spends $51 billion annually on these initiatives.
1
-
Part 2: "In 1986, the US Defense Department funded a two-year study by the RAND Corporation, which found that the use of the armed forces to interdict drugs coming into the United States would have little or no effect on cocaine traffic and might, in fact, raise the profits of cocaine cartels and manufacturers. The 175-page study, "Sealing the Borders: The Effects of Increased Military Participation in Drug Interdiction", was prepared by seven researchers, mathematicians and economists at the National Defense Research Institute, a branch of the RAND, and was released in 1988. The study noted that seven prior studies in the past nine years, including one by the Center for Naval Research and the Office of Technology Assessment, had come to similar conclusions. Interdiction efforts, using current armed forces resources, would have almost no effect on cocaine importation into the United States, the report concluded.
During the early-to-mid-1990s, the Clinton administration ordered and funded a major cocaine policy study, again by RAND. The Rand Drug Policy Research Center study concluded that $3 billion should be switched from federal and local law enforcement to treatment. The report said that treatment is the cheapest way to cut drug use, stating that drug treatment is twenty-three times more effective than the supply-side "war on drugs".
Google "How Portugal ended it's War on Drugs"
That final conclusion has already been proven fact for the last 30 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
legolo "Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ep330 Yes, correct.
My comment was more about evangelicals, who I perceive to be more radical, and close-knit. The pressure from the "ingroup" is far greater than in other Christian religious groups to conform to a majority opinion.
I think most Latinos, in case they are religious, are probably Roman Catholics, and therefore more tolerant towards gays and abortion. Concerning RC, I've often heard them say "not to be more Pope than the Pope himself" :-)
Meaning of course that they tend to be more open minded, or nuanced.
I hope you can follow what I mean.
Of course, I'm not trying to stereotype anybody. I'm sure there are also some evangelicals who are selfconfident enough to express own opinions, even within their "ingroup".
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willleahy6958 The Westphalian Principles regarding state sovereignty, in a nutshell deals with the internal affairs of a state.
State sovereighnty is defined as: "Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations."
In a nutshell, a "right to choose".
A state is completely in charge of own external and internal affairs, and nobody has a right to interfere.
From NATOs website:
"NATO Allies welcome Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO and they stand by the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance. Decisions regarding NATO membership are up to each individual applicant and the 30 NATO Allies. No one else. Russia has no right to intervene and cannot veto this process. Like every country, Ukraine has the sovereign right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security, one that Russia has also signed up to, including through the Helsinki Final Act (1975), the Charter of Paris (1990), the NATO-Russia Founding Act (1997) and the Charter for European Security (1999)."
Sounds "fair", right?
The "alpha" (USA) graciously "allows" the "betas" like the Ukraine to determine world affairs with "own choice".
The alpha has absolutely no say in matters, once a "little beta" country decides they should be signed up.
The tail wags the dog.
Everybody knows the world works that way.
The caretaker forces the CEO what to do even it leads to the end of the company. Parents dance to the tune of their kids so they can eat chocolates all day. The dog tells his master to obey, and so on.
The Ukriane can simply order the USA to "sign them up", and Washington DC can do absolutely nothing about it, because that's what Kiev wants.
That is all simply normal...
Today one often sees the "...but the Ukraine is free and sovereign, and had the choice to join NATO if they wish. It was their choice..."-rhetoric being repeated over and over and over again.
It is tomorrow's "history", already written in advance.
Maybe on clay tablets, but who cares?
Everybody says so, so it must be true, and there are absolutely no alternatives.
When it comes to the advanced planning on "where to point fingers", there is never a choice.
The answer to the rhetoric?
True.
Whoever said the Ukraine didn't have a choice?
Whoever said that NATO didn't also have a choice to just say "no", and suggest an alternative that ensures everybody's security issues?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ukwoodcarver What are your sources for that?
Note, Rasmussen's comment does not mention Sanders, or his proposals.
"Socialism" is what the US Socialist want, and they are actually criticising Sanders for not being socialist.
"Sanders described himself as a "democratic socialist"[5] and an admirer of aspects of social democracy as practiced in the Scandinavian countries. In an address on his political philosophy given at Georgetown University in November 2015, Sanders identified his conception of "democratic socialism" with Franklin D. Roosevelt's proposal for a Second Bill of Rights,[6][7] saying that democratic socialism means creating "an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy," reforming the political system (which Sanders says is "grossly unfair" and "in many respects, corrupt"), recognizing health care and education as rights, protecting the environment, and creating a "vibrant democracy based on the principle of one person, one vote."[8] He explained that democratic socialism is not tied to Marxism or the abolition of capitalism but rather describes a program of extensive social benefits, funded by broad-based taxes.[9
Samuel Goldman, assistant professor of political science at George Washington University, states that Sanders' platform is not socialist and is better described as "welfarism" reminiscent of the 1950s that aims to regulate rather than to replace capitalism. Goldman notes that Sanders does not advocate public ownership of the means of production nor does he seek to abolish the profit system, both of which Goldman considers to be defining characteristics of socialism.[10]
Lane Kenworthy, professor of sociology at the University of California at San Diego, has stated that Sanders is a social democrat and not a democratic socialist, and that the two ideologies are fundamentally different from each other. Kenworthy points out that social democracy does not aim to abolish capitalism, and argues that Sanders' use of the term "socialism" when he actually advocates "social democracy" is causing more confusion than it is adding value, and might unnecessarily have a negative impact on his presidential campaign. Mike Konczal, an economic policy expert at the Roosevelt Institute, also characterizes Sanders' positions as "social democracy" rather than "socialist", noting that social democracy means support for a mixed economy combining private enterprise with government spending, social insurance programs, Keynesian macroeconomic policies, and democratic participation in government and the workplace—all of which are a part of Sanders' platform.[11]
Andrei Markovits, professor of political science at the University of Michigan, defines democratic socialism as "an attempt to create a property-free, socialist society" and something that does not exist in Denmark or anywhere else in the world, and argues that Sanders' explanation of the term is inaccurate.[12]
American socialists and representatives belonging to the Democratic Socialists of America, Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Party USA have criticized Sanders, arguing that he is not a socialist because he aims to reform capitalism rather than to replace it with an entirely different socialist system.[13] Despite its criticism, the Democratic Socialists of America "strongly support[ed]" his campaign for President.[14] Former Sanders colleague Peter Diamondstone claimed that Sanders was a socialist during his time in the Liberty Union Party but is no longer a socialist.[15]"
[from Wiki]
1
-
Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised. "Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
1
-
@jakobc.2558 You should "have a problem" with the allied strategic bombing campaign of "carpet bombing" entire cities.
Why?
Because it killed own soldiers.
Note: not talking about the bombing of key industries.
The destruction of German cities and, collective punishment (with the subsequent retrospective justification from a 1945 POV) was one of the most ridiculous and counter productive exercises in warfare ever.
To illustrate why I say this, consider this objective chain of events.
Episode 1: The Area Bombing Directive, and declared official British government policy
According to the Area Bombing Directives of February 1942 "...entire cities were to be targeted..." (carpet bombing of city centers, hidden behind euphemisms like "de-housing" or "workforce"). For the next three years, this would be the policy followed by Bomber Command, and a majority (not all) raids were carried out according to this principle.
How effective was this to reduce the pressures of Allied soldiers fighting on the front lines? How effective was this to aid the ground forces, the ONLY forces which have the ability to end wars?
[Google "Area_bombing_directive"]
Episode 2 Around two years later.
One of the most feared German weapons of WW2 was the Tiger tank, built at the Henschell plant in Kassel. Kassel was "blasted as a whole" in October 1943. The entire city center was destroyed and about 10,000 "enemy" women and kids were burned to a cinder. According to the Area Bombing advocates, it was "a huge success".
Of course, according to the Area Bombing policy, the well-known heavy industrial plant of Henschell wasn't the target of this raid. An indirect result of the raid was that Tiger production rose from 1943 (650 built) to 1944 (around 1000 Tiger I and II).
[Google "Bombing_of_Kassel_in_World_War_II"]
Episode 3 Normandy
The 13th June 1944 was the blackest day in the history of the British 7th Armored Division. In the space of 15 minutes, Michael Wittman, commander of a Tiger tank, went on a rampage, and killed 217 young British soldiers, and 29 AFV's (tanks and APCs).
Episode 4 Today
Here's the million dollar question.
Would Wittman have been able to to the same on 13th June 1944, had his Tiger tank been destroyed in the October 1943 attack on Kassel? Would he have been able to (note: almost single handed) kill 217 young men, if he had been sitting on a bicycle, armed with an old rifle ? (because the heavy industry producing modern tanks had been destroyed in 1943/44)
I assume the Allied tankies in in Normandy, in their tin can Shermans weren't amused....
Nor were all those other young Allied soldiers, who were blown to bits on the battlefields by weapons which could have been destroyed in the factories if the right decisions had been made in February 1942. Despite bombing the sh*t out of city centers (or,..maybe BECAUSE of bombing city centers?), German armament production rose dramatically until the final quarter of 1944.
[Google "german-arms-production]
My personal conclusion?
Utter folly that we still have historians today who write "history books" which lead (mostly) young teen boys to gloat over the deaths over hundreds of thousands, or to lead people to revere men like Portal and Harris as "far sighted".
Their decisions indirectly led to the needless deaths of scores of OWN soldiers.
1
-
1
-
@m00nch11d The form of argumentation of shouting "you too" is a logical fallacy known as Tu Quoque...
"Tū quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior as being inconsistent with the argument's conclusion(s)."
[Wiki]
In other words, a deflection tactic popularly used in debates, politics, or everyday life, aka "finger pointing".
It's far more effective to point at outcome.
In other words:
Which countries have/have not "learned the lessons".
Which countries refuse to bomb, torture as a matter of policy, and which countries stick to International Law, common decency, and/or refuse to invade sovereign states in order to pursue their own interests.
That answer is simple and clear.
The "losers" of of WW2 are far more moral today, and the "winners" have apparently learnt nothing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Flurb_Xray Note that the laws at the time were somewhat ambiguous.
"ARTICLE XXV
The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.
ARTICLE XXVI
The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.
ARTICLE XXVII
In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.
The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants."
[Dannen(dot)com]
1
-
1
-
1
-
History repeating
"Divide and rule, the politician cries; Unite and lead, is watchword of the wise." ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"The rich ruling class has used tribalism, a primitive caveman instinct, to their advantage since the beginning of time. They use it to divide and conquer us. They drive wedges between us peasants and make us fight each other, so we won’t rise up against our rulers and fight them. You can observe the same old trick everywhere in America today... That doesn’t just happen all by itself. There are always voices instigating these fights." ― Oliver Markus Malloy
"Divide and rule, weaken and conquer, love and enslave, these are three tenets of politics" ― Bangambiki Habyarimana
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)." ― Mark Twain
"Any fool can know. The point is to understand." ― Albert Einstein
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Regardless of the "system of gain" in question, which come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
India is the West's "favorite son", just like 200 years ago during the age of colonialism...
You can expect the "promisers" like Blinken to arrive one after the other, with their fake smiles, and tell you how much they "value" you...and other eternal vague and meaningless "promises".
What THEY want, is to set up neighbors against each other, so they can step in to gain post event.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA and divide Europe and rule the world...
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
Regarding in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's leaders, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement, amongst other less "valuable" suitors (like Germany, see below comment), was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped in to avoid any form of continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below).
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises" :-)
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below comment explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
"Right or wrong" is of course easily and neutrally determined by "putting oneself in the shoes" of others.
When it came to "little nations being thrown to crocodiles", own interests came first.
Principles went overboard.
What aided in dividing Europe came first. The independence of little nations? Not so much...
Washington DC: "Principles like we showed in 1905? Nah. Let's ruffle some European feathers."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It was far more than a tragedy.
It was a geopolitical/grand strategy disaster.
They got a suitable answer from The American Century aka Washington DC after WW2.
The story of how the Brits lost their Empire...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying a power or alienating it was neither wise, nor in GB's best interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
After WW2, London had no leverage to further enforce or secure agreements, and down went the British Empire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar.
Washington DC s strategy is constant, using a geographical position of power.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equilibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to, and gaslighting the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequilibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equilibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The "divide and control/rule/conquer"-world is intact. It is practically as old as modern civilisation, and has never been defeated. Those with true power will do their utmost to ensure that the "divide and rule"-world we live in today, will rule for all times, because the DIVIDERS win, if all others fail.
The divide-and-rule system is a formless headless global system composed of every imaginable race, religion, ethnicity, language group, class, creed as an "ingroup" of power. This ingroup which intends to DIVIDE emergent unity elsewhere, contains all forms of "personal conviction" as "-ism" imaginable, with only a little input from top tiers.
Their aim is division.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The world is on the edge of nuclear catastrophe in no small part because of the failure of Western political leaders to be forthright about the causes of the escalating global conflicts. The relentless Western narrative that the West is noble while Russia and China are evil is simple-minded and extraordinarily dangerous. It is an attempt to manipulate public opinion, not to deal with very real and pressing diplomacy. The essential narrative of the West is built into US national security strategy. The core US idea is that China and Russia are implacable foes that are “attempting to erode American security and prosperity.” These countries are, according to the US, “determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence.” The irony is that since 1980 the US has been in at least 15 overseas wars of choice (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Panama, Serbia, Syria, and Yemen just to name a few), while China has been in none, and Russia only in one (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union. The US has military bases in 85 countries, China in 3, and Russia in 1 (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union." - Jeffrey Sachs, The West’s False Narrative about Russia and China (jeffsachs dot org)
Who is pushing, and pushing, until something snaps?
James Madison: "Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few..."
Eisenhower much later warned about the Military Industrial Complex: he simply made a statement about a system already in place, and which would not get unseated from power and positions of influence never mind what the common American wants or desires (political, lobbyists, "think tanks", and other interest groups).
Mark Twain — "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ole B. It is not about the false intelligence (Russian)
Here Mosche Dayan statement concerning the intentional facts of provocation.
Note, that at this point while these provocations took place, Egypt was isolated (by the UN in the Sinai) and couldn't assist Syria if a war broke out.
" In 1976, Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan said that Israel provoked more than 80% of the clashes with Syria, although historians say the remark was part of an informal conversation.[82] The provocation was sending a tractor to plow in the demilitarized areas. The Syrians responded by firing at the tractors and shelling Israeli settlements.[83][84] Jan Mühren, a former UN observer in the area at the time, told a Dutch current affairs programme that Israel "provoked most border incidents as part of its strategy to annex more land".[85] UN officials blamed both Israel and Syria for destabilizing the borders."
For sources, see the original wiki text
Begin, Peled, Dayan, and other generals have already admitted that the war was intentionally provoked and started at a time when the Israeli leaders knew there was no Arab plan to attack them...
They were comfortable in the knowledge that they were superior to the Arab neighbors, and that the general consensus was "if war, rather now than later".
Now, what does that "reasoning" remind you of?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Seeing how most of the comments are slogans and appeals to emotion, I'll just jump into the fray.
For hundreds of years, the British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations around the world. Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images"). When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets". The locals defending their own? Pfffft. Nobody cared...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps (called "penal colonies"), and terror bombing innocents called Air Policing...
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s killed their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Strange, how few in this comments section address the core message Hasan made.
The core message being that it is the USA meddling in their world.
As Robert Kennedy Jr. notes about the history of the ME:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster
So who was it that went to their world, removed their moderate leaders, and replaced them with religiously indoctrinated nitwits? Correct. Our religiously indoctrinated nitwits who wanted to turn people into tools....lmfao...
The truth is that the USA absolutely loooooves Jihadists, as long as they don't act against the USA.
Or, that Biblical logic: "the people shall reap what your leaders have sown"...
1
-
1
-
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
At 6:56 minutes.
The big fish "eating" the small fish.
You can help steer against the trend.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
POWER. DOESN'T. CARE.
Maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are trapped in a "divide and rule world", and it has been all about PROFITS and CONTROL over the people.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PART I
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), (§§§ see PART II, below) the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed." SOURCE: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive
US strategist in these think tanks lay out the scheme of what was going to be the new post-war reality, as a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" for the USA to control. Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under US supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.)
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." Note, all words in quotes were actual words used IN THIS OFFICIAL US DOCUMENT, and the thesis and its quoted sources can all be downloaded for free, from the www, and using these key words provided for your search engine.
---------------------------------
After around 1940, ... (quote) "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident (§§§footnote) – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. *Within this framework the role of France, Germany and ENGLAND of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations..."
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world."
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.", Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
1
-
1
-
It was sold out in 1898 by her European neighbors.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries.
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
@iCoolaxe I would have have all following a predetermined set of rules called "international law".
Unfortunately the "too big to care"-attitude problem means that "laws" are only there for the other guy, not for "me".
That then results in an international situation where nobody cares about "laws" anymore, because all one needs to ignore these laws is enough muscle.
Not followung mutually agreed upon laws, then creates tension.
May I remind you that in the post-Cold War era (say the 1990), that it was only the USA left over.
China was still weak.
The SU/Russia had collapsed.
Still, even without the "excuse" of needing to stand up to "evil", it was the USA which mainly created this "new normal".
Washington DC was still in "alpha"-mode, and couldn't step down.
The 1990s would have been the perfect opportunity to "release" Europe, and prod them on towards taking more responsibility for own defense and/or world affairs.
This was something I already critisized at the time (1990s). So this is no "hindsight" on my behalf.
I watched on while Turkey (under Erdogan) fulfilled every single requirement for EU entry, only to have more "catalogues" of "requirements" presented to them...until they gave up.
See the "sh*tholes" we create ourselves with an own attitude problem of wanting everybody to be like us?
It turns; 180 degrees.
Same with the USA "using" NATO" as a tool of own world domination.
I'll copy a seperate essay below, to explain what I mean.
There is no "innocence" here.
Only "powers" wishing to hang on to "power".
It never ends well.
1
-
@iCoolaxe Re. NATO
Fact: By own admission, and known to all, the USA misuses NATO as a tool to ensure its global hegemony.
For that it needs "Euroweanies" that it can manipulate.
Just enough emotionally steered "Euroweanies" who are easily manipulated in a giant "divide and rule"-game, which uses a variety of emotionally-laden topics to incite outrage, tear open old wounds (history), and/or use negative human emotions like greed or the fear of losing out, etc. to stir up trouble.
"Trouble" can then be swum in, like a fish in water.
Beware of the dividers.
Age-old advice: "When a man is prey to his emotions, he is not his own master."
Benedict de Spinoza
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]"
Or as the old "insider joke" goes: NATO's "function" is "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out."
Nobody needs "friends" like that.
*When "mutual defence" becomes a secondary function, and is rated below "big power ambitions"...
1
-
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
WW1 was a war of choice.
Because each country which joined WW1 did so voluntarily, with the exception of Belgium.
There were no binding defense treaties (like NATO is today). The leaders of each country therefore implemented what is known as "war of choice". Each nation only has its own historical leaders to blame.
Blaming Germany for it, is a fallacious form of argumentation known as "outcome bias". That means that historical decisions once taken are judged by the outcome, rather than judged by what the original intention of the decision was.
As far as "poor Belgians" as Casus Belli for GB and the Empire....
First off: "poor Belgians" was an emotional argument, same as "WMDs" and "Saddam Hussein involved in 9/11" back in 2003....and its always the same people who are going to be fooled by it. The young, and the ignorant.
Belgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB.
In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
According to historians, the British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war", in other words, Belgium was Casus Belli.
Correct?
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". In other words, no invasion, no Casus Belli...
Also correct?
Berlin therefore approached London, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
Belgium was a so-called geostrategic barrier to ensure the Policy of Balance of Power, and protect the British Empire. GB fought WW1 for own interests, not the "safety of others" or any other emotional argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saltedjules_ Why are you so emotional?
Unfortunately, in history, one must often "start" at the consequences of own actions, in order to point out mistakes which happened along the way.
In the big picture of things, spotting mistakes as a contemporary witness is far more difficult.
True today. True at any point in history.
Furthermore, in order to "avoid history repeating itself", one must first admit that mistakes were made.
Also own mistakes.
Because, according to biblical logic: only by "removing the splinters from own eyes", can we avoid "sowing seeds", which we all "reap" at some point.
So here is how European reign and domination of the world ended in 1945, and a few subsequent years (short version, longer version below):
At the end of WW2, the USA (American Century) refused to honor an important treaty Western Allied leaders had made in Quebec.
A treaty/agreement almost nobody had ever heard about.
With that, Washington DC intended to become the sole nuclear power, and not share (as promised per treaty) nukes with London/GB/Empire.
By doing so, the new alpha stated that it did not want an equal power at eye level. They wanted a "junior partner".
And with that, they became the new alpha.
Rule Britania, repealed and replaced by the American Century.
Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana.
Rule the Waves? Let's put it this way. No more "Two Power Standard". Who had "the bigger one"? :-)
Washington DC (The American century) was in a position to "tear up a scrap of paper" and not care what anybody in "old Europe" thought about it.
Washington Internationalism/The American Century, the other "new power" rising across the Atlantic, whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”
It's interesting to google that quote. Of course it refers to a timeless political strategy, which is true at all times, and explains a lot about the headlines we see in the papers today.
Anyway...
Re. the concept of "being able to spot an anomaly" as history unfolded forward. Of course, it does not "happen backwards", but there is a timeline.
Machiavelli's "balance of power".
Of course Machiavelli didn't invent the concept of "balance of power", but was one of the first to put it down in words in western literature.
Would a true Machiavelli have ignored the noticeable change/shift in the "balance" of the powers at around the turn of the Century? (1900)
Note that the reality of the time was that while GB/Empire and the rising USA were roughly equal in "power" at the time (around 1900), only one of these 2 "powers" had the potential to hang on to her power as the world noticeably changed around the contemporary witnesses at the time, and at least for wise leaders, also in the foreseeable future (Washington DC as the firmly established soft power "master/hegemon" in the Americas, vs. London the "still master" of an outdated 1,000+ year old colonial model).
Would a true Machiavelli have snuggled up to a power without being able to "leverage/hedge" any deal (treaty/accord/agreement/etc.) it made?
Would a true Machiavelli have relied on "appeals to emotion" (like "everybody speaking English") to ensure a dominant position?
Last time I checked, "snuggling up" without also being in a position to "leverage" and/or "hedge" a deal, wasn't in the book (The Prince).
Re. the concept of "how history unfolded aroun the turn of the century, around 1900": reality (aka "the truth") created an anomaly in the algorithm on the timeline of history.
Stalin spotted it, and he intended to imitate it.
I'm sure he identified the "weak links" of Western European domination set up by Versailles by the "Big Three", and other post-WW1 treaties, without Moscow being consulted.
The early Communism in One Country advocates in Moscow, soon to become World Communism: "Observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership."
I'm sure he read a lot...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NTJedi "A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion. A red herring may be used intentionally, as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g., in politics), or may be used in argumentation inadvertently.
The term was popularized in 1807 by English polemicist William Cobbett, who told a story of having used a kipper (a strong-smelling smoked fish) to divert hounds from chasing a hare." [wiki]
The core issue here is obviously
1) exploitation of children in general ( all children, boys and girls)
2) international scope, due to internet
The solution in the international internet age
1) special human rights for children
2) each country issue laws accordingly
Once this is in place, you can actually arrest and sentence the perpetrators you've identified.
No law. No crime.
No matter how much you whine and complain on the internet, nothing will change from the fore problem....no law = no crime.
Obviously, get your representatives to implement the laws.
What are you doing to achieve that?
Any kind of distraction from this core issue, is a classical case of Red Herring (distraction from the core issue ).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Zerpersande The ME was a so-called "contested sphere of influence".
Moscow's intention was to stir up trouble here, focussing western attention, so it could agitate elsewhere. A proven "art" of war. See Sun Tzu, or Clausewitz. Still valid today, as it was a 200 or a thousand years ago.
Had the "alpha" of the west (Washington DC) escalated here, Moscow would have gained somewhere else. SE Asia (Vietnam), or Central America, for example.
Egypt meant nothing to Moscow. Same as the "poor Republicans of Spain", and Spanish democracy during the Spanish Civil War 40 years before that.
The aim was to lure the west in, embroiling it in costly wars, and then to agitate and gain elsewhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump will sell you out to the highest bidder...
Because:
One war in the ME is enough.
It seems as if there are forces behind Trump, which are setting the stage for another war here...
Here are the signs for war:
1) North Korea: make peace, in order to free forces and avoid 'bandwagon effect' (Kim allying with Moscow, via the common border)
2) UN: disgrace the UN with a smear campaign (neutral observer, as opposed to...ahem..."embedded journalists")
3) set up Riyad as a US lapdog, to carry out a 'false flag' in the Gulf (read, I mean really READ the headlines)
4) EU: chisel away at the unity of the EU, already with good results in Poland and GB (Brexit as "divide and rule" tool, for a two front war scenario for Russia, and lighting rods for Russian nukes)
5) Palestinian /Israeli conflict: get Saudi Arabia to "sign away" (sacrifice) the Palestinian cause (free the back of this "smiling prince" aka Washington's lapdog, to attack Iran)
Remember what Putin said.
"You shall not pass".
My advice, unless we wish to argue about "who started it" on clay tablets in the near future, is to heed that warning...
1
-
1
-
POWER. DOESN'T. CARE.
Maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are trapped in a "divide and rule world", and it has been all about PROFITS and CONTROL over the people.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
Starts off with a snowman argument.
"Snowmanning" is PragerU's favorite strategy.
The Green New Deal is about creating forward facing jobs, at the expense of "the old". Instead of subsidizing oil and coal with billions of taxpayer dollars every year, invest these billions in the future, to keep up with the rest of the world.
Fun fact, is that China and Europe don't care about American conservative policies, and are investing in the future.
But yeah, I guess if the internet existed a 100 years ago, PragerU would have created videos about "evil cars" and "stinking unreliable engines", and telling you all about how protecting the interest of the "horsebuggy industry", farmers growing hay, vets, and all that had to be protected...
1
-
Canonized in ideological frameworks:
"We" (ingroup) are always on the right/good side, regardless of what we do.
"They" (outgroup) are always on the wrong/bad side, because of what they do.
Theories based on good vs bad leave a lot of room for bias and interpretation depending on the vantage point of the storytellers of history. These stories are therefore overwhelmingly subjective, and therefore appeal to the emotions of an audience.
On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: The theory is a systemic analysis which is overwhelmingly neutral and objective and is therefore a dull topic to most people on the planet.
Why "dull"? Because people want to hear "stories". The theory, however, is not a "story".
It states how intentions lead to effects.
At its core level, the theory states that throughout history there were two opposing forces in action when it comes to the concept of gain. All other human interaction when it comes to the topic of gain are subject to this. These opposing forces are not the commonly held truism as being the forces of good vs. bad/evil, but rather those forces which wish to unite to create their own systemic concord, using a variety of techniques, and those forces which gain from division, using a variety of techniques of power.
What evolves out of that as causal chain of events is then the friction, which is created as these opposing forces collide, which then fosters the emergence of narratives of good and evil, by providing the catalyst (human nature). Note: words have definitions and meanings and context matters, not only when it is beneficial from their own standpoint.
Every single struggle for power ever, every single crisis about a man-made system ever, and every single war ever, has arisen out of these two opposing forces of concord/discord (causality). Anybody may of course try to find exceptions to this rule, and will find none, unless one engages in typical human behavioral patterns.
Name the struggle, and one can point out whether it arose out of the attempt to create concord, or discord. Every single good vs. bad narrative (the "stories" people tell themselves, as they are creating systemically useful "ingroups and outgroups") ever has arisen from this very simple axiom.
On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: At its most fundamental core, the theory states that where there are intentions by systems to create unity, the opposing forces to such unity, or systemic actors, would then try to divide observed forces of unity, using key strategies, and vice-versa: where intentions of trying to create division are observed by actors trying to create unity in systems, key strategies are employed to overcome these divisions, to achieve unity in a system. These take place at the same time, making a timeline difficult to assess, contributing to the favoring of pleasing narratives for own causes, as a way of convincing large numbers of people.
Like a double-helix, these forces envelope the timeline of history. It does not HAVE a "start" or "stop."
The tier of interaction is irrelevant, and where there is an intention of achieving systemic gain, the strategies will closely resemble each other: from the micro- to the most macro level of all: International Relations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers.
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same butt which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity.
Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."
Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power.
In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS.
Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket for the modus operandi. Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
---------------------------------------
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
Washington DC/Pentagon doesn't CARE if they "win" or "lose." Only snowflakes care about the "winning/losing"-false dichotomy. They have already achieved their goal, which is European/Eurasian hate, fear, anger...
It's "divide and rule."
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or the British Empire's Mackinder/Pivot of History before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their geographical advantage.
With re. to how tools to implement the strategy are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as Kissinger implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combated by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today.
Today as we watch on, the Ukraine is being burnt to the "last Ukrainian soldier" accompanied by cheers of "...but, but, but they had a choice!!"
Poland will be next to be given a "choice," if the Ukraine fails as US/Western proxy and tool, in a long list of previous examples of the Washington DC/Pentagon-steered global strategy.
1
-
1
-
PragerU are not telling the whole truth and neither are you...
You conveniently forget the waves of extreme poverty of the late-1980s and early-1990s, leading to Chavez being elected in the first place. The lesson of democracy is simple. If you cannot convince the people that the "model" you preach is better, by example, they will drift off...
Venezuela was subsequently ruined by "populism", not "socialism".
Google the definitions, and realize that PragerU is a propaganda channel, which skews facts in order to gather support.
China is a "socialist state". To be exact, a "Marxist Socialist" state.
Venezuela fits the definition of a social democracy, and it failed because Chavez bribed supporters with state revenue, funded by a high price of oil. When the price of oil caved in, he could no longer fund the promises he had made, and shifted more and more to threats, rather than coercion (more "stick", less "carrot").
Note, all of the above are "internal politics".
Today, the price of oil is back up, but US sanctions are stifling a recovery. Note, that this is "foreign meddling" building on the foundation of a corrupt system.
Same happened in Greece, minus the extreme foreign intervention. For decades, Greek politicians had lavishly coaxed supporters with gifts, predominantly paid for by generous EU loans. Greece collapsed when cheap EU loans stayed out after the 2009 economic crisis.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Welcome2TheInternet Welcome to reality.
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
I know what these Zionist want.
The claim to want peace, but what they want is to take over, one piece of land, one field, one house at a time.
You stop them, FIRST.
THAT, comes "first".
1
-
1
-
@MikeHunt-fo3ow Here is the grandest of all the grand strategies.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million gaining at the expense of billions, as the USA/collective West has done these past 500 years.
I'm sure most of the planet's leaders will immediately agree to this, and our US/collective West will do as they've always done: pretend to wish to "sign up for it" overtly and ostentatiously (doves), but use deception to torpedo such attempts of global equillibrium covertly (hawks).
Good cops (neolibs) and bad cops (neocon).
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@woke2woke153 OK, thank you. Then we can certainly agree on a lot.
From what I've analysed from reading hundreds of books, articles, theses, and watching many a debate, is that true geopolitical issues will never be resolved by us, let's call "us" the "commoners."
If it were up to the principle of the commons, and along such guidelines, there never would have been a problem to start off with. I'm 100% certain that the original inhabitants would have had no issues with immigration as such, but that it was the "agenda" behind that caused the uprisings. The fear of becoming overpowered in the lands they were born. The British Empire was inempt at solving the issues at this point, when it was still possible (1920's).
It is IMO not the common small people who cause problems, but when politicians step in and impose top-down, agenda driven rulings, that is when problems quickly run out of hand.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Start pulling the rug from underneath their feet...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the UN, all the great powers of the world, had veto powers.
The "deciders" sat in the separate "Security Council".
In the past power meant, and still means, that any other decisions by lower-tiered little states could simply be ignored without any consequences.
The colonial structures of TRUE POWER persisted.
Divide-and-rule.
Whoever vetoes, "rules" by exclusion, aka enabling minority rule over majorities...
Not saying it is completely useless, since it serves a vital function of documentation and "heart" of the world, but the UN was of course, not a "power" but a debating club, and a US tool, which Washington DC only agreed upon after WW2, because they could control it (unlike the League of Nations after WW1, which US politicians feared they might not be able to control for their own benefit, in view of the POWER of the colonial European empires, so the USA didn't join it after WW1).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
She is not "persecuted".
That is your straw man...
She is being called out because of trying to restrict the rights of fellow students, based on these students personal convictions.
Here's the reality check...
Some people are born deaf. Some people are born without arms and legs.
Are you nice to them, despite them being different?
Some people are born with the "wrong" brain.
In around 0,5% of births, a "female brain" is born into a male body, or vice versa. Your god, according to your belief, wanted it like that. Obviously, if not, he would not allow it to happen.
https://www.papermag.com/victorias-secret-trans-model-2639631221.html
Be nice.
Don't discriminate, because they want the same rights you already have. That is the right not to be discriminated against, based on their personal convictions ...
1
-
1
-
Meanwhile, after more than two years Boris Johnson has admitted that the war in the Ukraine is a proxy war for US/collective Western interests, and Vladimir Zelensky has stated that "there are those in the West who don't mind a long war [in Ukraine]" to extend Russia, using his peoples as tools for the gain of outsiders who drool over the profits (Mitch McConnell), or lust after the systemic expansion possible as result of great upheavals amongst human beings. Does this take the wind out of the sails of the "paid Putin puppet"-screamers, blindly chanting their MSM narratives against those who have said this from day 1? Not at all. In order to fit their idealist world views, and ideologically-inspired standpoints, these tools will deny reality, rattle down the narrative to a point of making total fools of themselves. They would now have to believe that Boris Johnson, or Vladimir Zelensky are "paid Putin puppets", in order to square a circle...
This is exactly what is meant with fools arguing their way into the trenches their own leaders have deceived them into.
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
World War 1 (Seven Years War)
World War 2 (Napoleonic Wars)
World War 3 (Great War/WW1)
World War 4 (World War 2)
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the 'Grand Area,' which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed... These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." - GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive
“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.” — Henry Kissinger (attr.) The beauty of "history", is that the "control freaks" of history tell you exactly what they aim to do. Whether Kissinger actually said this or not, is not important. What is important is that it is one of those age-old truisms known to the average history fan as the "siege" of towns and fortresses, as the "naval blockade" (military strategy) as technology improved, or in modern times the "political/economic sanctions", all with a host of variations as our world became more and more complex.
But even that Kissinger quote is not the entire truth. When these few have the MEANS (economic, military, political clout), they control the RESOURCES, and that includes human beings all over the globe as potential PROXIES as "human resources". It is the control of the resources they are after.
There is the big picture.
US primacy, to be defended at all costs per declaration.
1
-
"Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
1
-
1
-
1
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS/GLOBALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS/MILITARISTS. Their branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheVelvetApe The reporting of this February 23rd shooting started long before this video leaked.
You can actually google the newspaper reports (for example, the Brunswick Times) and read up about things like the initial police report (released Mar 31st).
That is what was reported, even before the "outrage" caused by the video.
Or, one could say that the reason the video caused such outrage, was because of the corrupt nature of local police department.
They were justifiably upset, because they'd been lied to, and the video proved it.
From wiki, reporting of corrupt nature of the Glynn County Police Department and District Attorney's Office for the Brunswick Judicial Circuit.
"The Glynn County Police Department has a troubled history that was revisited following Arbery's killing.[32][1] The New York Times noted that in preceding years, the department had "been accused of covering up allegations of misconduct, tampering with a crime scene, interfering in an investigation of a police shooting and retaliating against fellow officers who cooperated with outside investigators."[1] Days after Arbery was fatally shot, the chief of police – who had been brought in to clean up a police force described by the county manager in 2019 as poorly trained and characterized by a "culture of cronyism" – was indicted on charges arising from an alleged cover-up of a sexual relationship that an officer had with an informant.[1] The involvement of the Glynn County Police Department as the primary investigator in a case involving its former officer Gregory McMichael was controversial.[22]
In response to a grand jury report issued in November 2019 (which condemned the Glynn County Police Department over "alleged officer misconduct and poor coordination with the local sheriff's office"), State Senator William Ligon of Brunswick in early 2020 introduced legislation that would give Georgia voters the choice on whether to abolish county police departments.[33] However, the legislation failed to pass the General Assembly.[33]
Arbery's death prompted re-examinations of earlier shootings by Glynn County police.[32] In 2010, two police officers fatally shot an unarmed woman, Caroline Small, through her car windshield.[32] Four former prosecutors who worked under Glynn County District Attorney Jackie Johnson said that Johnson shielded the officers from criminal prosecution; a 2015 investigation by WSB-TV revealed that Johnson had agreed to not show the grand jury a draft murder indictment and had "allowed the officers' department to present a factually inaccurate animation they created showing Small's car escaping through a gap and running over the officers."[32] One of the officers involved in the shooting of Small—Corey Sasser—subsequently murdered his ex-wife and her boyfriend before committing suicide in 2018.[32] Due to Johnson having previously worked with Gregory McMichael when he was an investigator in her office, she recused herself from further involvement in the case.[34]"
1
-
1
-
@colinharbinson8284 The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the indivual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with _themselves.
1
-
@bahoonies The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Africa and the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in Africa and the ME) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Four corners of the globe. Same games.
1
-
@alaninsoflo The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same people and systems. Different times. Same games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bahoonies It's not for the TLDR crowd. The answer will take 5 minutes of your time.
Do you think the current forces of an emerging and gaining "-ism" called "globalism" are anything new on the timeline of history?
In case there is a common cause, for BOTH the left and the right of the political spectrum, to oppose globalism, what are the globalists going to do to avoid the "lefties/liberals" and right-wingers from uniting with like-minded centrists for a common cause?
Regarding the first question:
No, "globalism" is nothing new.
We are living it.
The first "globalists" were merchants, as so-called "mercantilism." Wiki: "Mercantilism is a nationalist economic policy that is designed to maximize the exports and minimize the imports for an economy. In other words, it seeks to maximize the accumulation of resources within the country and use those resources for one-sided trade." [end of] They united with other systems of POWER (like militarism, and imperialism), to achieve the own aims and goals.
In all instances, they used a superior GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER to achieve aims and goals.
Then came the "internationalist." Wiki: "Internationalism is a political principle that advocates greater political or economic cooperation among states and nations.[1] It is associated with other political movements and ideologies, but can also reflect a doctrine, belief system, or movement in itself. Supporters of internationalism are known as internationalists and generally believe that humans should unite across national, political, cultural, racial, or class boundaries to advance their common interests, or that governments should cooperate because their mutual long-term interests are of greater importance than their short-term disputes." [end of]
In all instances of history, such powers united top-down, in order to force realities which were beneficial to the own causes, onto the "masses." The powers driving internationalism were not going to rely on capitalism to to ensure the future of their own products, or the superiority of other systems of gain. They were going to employ top-down POWER to enforce it, and history full of examples of such allocations of POWER (colonialism, robber barons, etc.).
In all instances, they used a superior GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER to achieve aims and goals.
But that was a loooong time ago, so let's concentrate on a more recent post-WW2 history of globalists ambitions in a more recent, and therefore more relevant history. Wiki: "The term first came into widespread usage in the United States.[18] The modern concept of globalism arose in the post-war debates of the 1940s in the United States. In their position of unprecedented power, planners formulated policies to shape the kind of postwar world they wanted, which in economic terms meant a globe-spanning capitalist order centered exclusively upon the United States. This was the period when its global power was at its peak: the United States was the greatest economic power the world had known, with the greatest military machine in history. In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."[end of]
America's allies and foes in Eurasia were still recovering from World War II at this time. In this time of mutual European exhaustion, the USA could implement its own vision for the planet, without the fear of having any other opposing force stand up to it. Litarally stating: How can we keep on eating popcorn and chips, from this position of the fence we're on? That question is answered in more than 100 essays in the below comments section.
Divide and rule.
These forces of POWER have been around for a long time, and never ended, nor were they ever satiated.
They reach their aims by "dividing" opposing forces.
They united and created mutually beneficial converging interests models of power.
Giant cyclic dynamical systems of POWER as a "club," but "you ain't in it" (quote George Carlin).
They have always intended to keep some "down" and others "out" as strategies of power, as default settings.
They add power to some systems if useful to themselves, and subtract power from other systems if it is beneficial to the own systems.
They gain if others lose.
In all instances, they used a superior GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER to achieve aims and goals.
They "divide" left-wing systems, and "right-wing" systems, on every tier, right up to the "history" you know as European imperialism and "WW1."
These forces operating from the rimlands of the world, using local proxies from within Europe, use and abuse human beings as...
- walls and barriers
- as proxies for the own gain
- as tools (instruments of power)
- as potential "staging areas" for future own use
- as "extensions" of the own power (or increased "reach" for the imperialist power)
Just remember, it is the "acme of professionalism," to quote Gen. Keith Kellogg (Ret.) to set up Europeans/Eurasians against each other, to amplify all already existing divisions, and to ensure that it stays that way.
Spot the template Washington DC used for Europe?
What did the Germans say in the 1930s, when Father Niemöller remarked, "First they came for the communists, but I did not speak out, because I was not a communist..."?
That's how systems of power work.
They come for their potential rivals one after the other.
The "slippery slope" from another perspective.
When the balance of power changes, as potential opposition to their own greed gets removed, one by one, and one after the other, they step in and fill the power vacuum. Then, finally they will come for the ignorant and complacent. The balance of power will be destroyed, and there will be nothing anybody can do anymore as an individual system of minor power...
You will own nothing, and be happy, just like the overwhelming number of people who lived 500 years ago, and 200 years ago, and the people you see around you today (footnote).
The concept of the "Blind Spot Bias" will be employed to keep most people blind as to what is happening.
Regarding the second question, the answer is shorter: They'll employ the "divide and rule"-technique of power, to divide the opposition.
"Divide and rule" has many subsections, but one of the propaganda means used is the "false dichotomy."
The intention of such rhetorical tools is to create "teams" of cheering fans.
For the dividers, it is mainly about:
a) with me or against me
b) right or wrong
c) true or false
d) win or lose
e) left wing (politics) or right wing (see below essay for the small tier examples)
f) my team or your team
e) this opinion or that opinion
footnote:
"You will own nothing and be happy."
On the domestic tier inside countries.
First, they came for the mom and pop stores, but we had Amazon & cie., and did not care. Then, they came for the farmers, and the fields, but we did not care for we had Walmart shelves packed to the brim. Finally, the corporations came for your house, and there was nobody left to speak for you. How convenient if family-led businesses and farms all over the world are busy going bankrupt. The corporations can swarm in, get the land cheaply, and feast on the dividends of renting the property back to the original owners. In the end, YOU will own nothing, but you won't be happy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh the "good friends" Winnie made...
On one side, Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
And the other "good friends"?
The cute "uncle Joe"?
Stalin figured out that Washington DC (US Senate and Congress) wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. What are you going to do about it?"
And down went GB and her interests, and empire.
From unmistakable nr.1 in the year 1900, down to third fiddle in less than a lifetime.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The REAL aim is China.
Russia, eventually "carved up" into smaller pieces and turned into future minions, is simply the means to an end.
Korea, Vietnam, Ukraine...
Will the little minions ("buck catchers" in strategy) ever learn?
Those who eagerly "carve up" others, even along arbitrary human-made boundaries on a map, dividing individuals, organisations, families, and businesses, are unlikely to agree with being "carved up" by someone else.
Korea was divided by imperialists during World War II (with the cooperation of the imperialist Allied camp) without consulting the local population about their priorities.
A few years later, they attempted the same in Vietnam, using the ongoing war of independence as a pretext (marketed as "the USA saving the world from communism"). This effort was unsuccessful.
The true objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China
According to Wikipedia: "Main article: China containment policy. As articulated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-term strategic initiative to encircle Beijing with the USSR and its satellite states, as well as: The Japan–Korea front, The India–Pakistan front, and The Southeast Asia front. Although President Johnson claimed that the goal of the Vietnam War was to ensure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a memorandum from January 1965 by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton indicated that an underlying justification was "not to assist a friend, but to contain China". On November 3, 1965, Secretary of Defense McNamara sent a memorandum to Johnson, outlining "major policy decisions regarding our course of action in Vietnam". The memorandum begins by revealing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965: 'The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they support a long-term United States policy to contain China. McNamara accused China of having imperial ambitions similar to those of the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States: 'China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30s, and like the USSR in 1947—emerges as a significant power threatening to undermine our importance and effectiveness globally and, more distantly but more ominously, to unite all of Asia against us.'
Note that this is a common tactic in international relations: accuse the "other side" of actions that one is undertaking oneself. The strategy of divide-and-rule is kept hidden, while the opposing side is accused of having malicious intentions, without providing any actual evidence (the concept of "accusation without proof"). To encircle China, the United States aimed to establish "three fronts" as part of a "long-term effort to contain China": 'There are three fronts to a long-term effort to contain China (recognising that the USSR "contains" China to the north and northwest): (a) the Japan–Korea front; (b) the India–Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.'
Later, McNamara acknowledged that containing China would ultimately cost America a considerable amount of time, money, and lives. As is often the case, "extending" a rising rival power incurs "expenses", including lives, which is why the intention is to create proxies in artificial entities like "South Vietnam" to carry out such containment for the dominant power.
This is divide-and-rule.
Favouritism, or the "paid/supported proxy", can be employed during peacetime to undermine rivals or wage subversive warfare, or during wartime to reduce costs and losses while gaining systemic advantages after a "victory". When a proxy fails to achieve this "extension of the rival", it is quickly abandoned or discarded to cut the "investment", and a new proxy is sought. This pattern was evident in the 1930s: in 1939, the "first proxy" identified was Poland, and when Poland failed to "extend Germany" for a prolonged period, it was decided to provoke either Germany or the USSR to invade Scandinavia (Plan R4). Ideally, both Germany and the SU would invade Scandinavia, leading to a potential clash there, distracting attacks away from the heartlands. While Great Britain and France still cooperated, this was straightforward: both would benefit if the war "pivoted away" from Western Europe/British Isles into Scandinavia. If the attention could be focused somewhere else on the map, a Battle of Britain and a Battle of France could potentially be avoided, if the Germans became bogged down in Scandinavia for example...
That did not occur.
However.
Align with such individuals at your own risk.
They do not adhere to the Christian values they consistently boast as being "oh-so-superior" and worthy of admiration...
North Korea/South Korea (implemented "unsinkable aircraft carrier").
North Vietnam/South Vietnam (intention/failure).
East Ukraine/West Ukraine (in progress).
Always the same playbook.
The modus operandi has been consistent since 1776: advancing onto another power's borders (systematically), also through proxies, then blaming those who are encroached upon/encircled if they react, or blaming the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War advance began in the 1990s, so even if the Trump administration did not initiate the "marching order", it is a fact that he did not halt it either when he had the chance during his first term (2017-2021). This can be examined as empirical evidence (observation/map) which clarifies who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should avoid engaging with debaters who base their theories on ideology or emotions, especially not if the advocate reveals themselves as dogmatic, prone to logical fallacies or cognitive biases. Such individuals are not interested in outcomes but wish to make "debates" go in circles indefinitely, obfuscating, side-lining, and finger-pointing to evade the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current trajectory of the empire, which began when the USSR faced economic decline in the late 1980s, with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the advance)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the advance)
Continuously advance, trampling over one red line after another, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). If anything negative occurs, and lives are lost, always blame someone else. This type of imperialist behaviour, as demonstrated by Washington DC and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not begin solely after World War II. This marching order has been in place since 1776, with the first victims being neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territories were coveted. That was followed by Spain in the 1890s (put into action in 1898) whose desirable territories would create a link between the USA and East Asia.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries so that any economic surplus generated by that country is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US government, and especially to US bondholders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It remains the same today as it has since 1776.
The reality is that neither Trump nor any previous administration has halted this (systemic) "slow march" of systemic expansion, whilst getting the "buck catcher" to pick up the tab if things don't turn out as strategized.
Be cautious of the ideologically indoctrinated: Like a child, they confidently repeat things they do not know to be true.
The "three frontlines" mentioned in grand strategy, to encroach and encircle a rival power, is history rhyming after 1900 and after 2000.
Around the year 1900, the "three frontlines" in times of peace were:
- eastern frontline (Russia, with France 1891-1894)
- western frontline (France, with Russia or the "2-front war danger" for the multi-lingual/multi-ethnic "encircled", 1891 - 1894)
- the North Sea and global oceans (1907, as the British Empire aligned with the encirclers)
USA: on the "fence", just "eating popcorn"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers.
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same butt which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity.
Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."
Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power.
In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS.
Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket for the modus operandi. Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
---------------------------------------
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
It wasn't "a wrong turn" which started WW1. It "triggered" WW1...
The real "WW1", or first "great" war actually took place from 1803 to 1815.
In terms of scope and victims, it was mainly limited by technology. Still, despite the limited capabilities of the weapons of the times, there were more than 4 million victims, in all corners of the globe.
The first truly "global war".
Notice however how historians (correctly btw) separate this "first global war" (aka The Napoleonic Wars) into seven distinct phases, based on a scientific and exact analyses of the reasons/motivations at the time, whereas for WW1/WW2 there are attempts to create one big emotionally steered mashup.
Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, historians are of course far more candid re. "motivations/reasons" (note: the real reasons, not the ancillary details). Most people are entirely emotionally detached from events 200 years ago, so there is also no need to spin history either to appease an own population.
There are no endless debates about "Who started it?"
The Napolionic Wars were of course declared by London, as a preventive war, in May 1803, and the (correct) reason/motivation given for this declaration of war, by most historians, is that it was to "avoid the single hegemony" on the continent.
In 1914, "WW1" evolved out of a local conflict, which started in the Balkans, and through a few unfortunate twists and turns developed into the second truly "world" war, in order to establish domination and rule.
Hanlon's Razor states "not to attribute to mallice, what can adequately be explained by stupidity", and with WW1, Europe started its own demise because of efforts to remain individually dominant/relevant.
Of course, on the other side of the Atlantic, wars were always fought for unity, and common goals (aim of expansion).
The American Century was a ship already launched, but renamed halfway.
The "ship" started its journey with a war of unity (the Civil War because of "poor slaves" aka "the emotional argument"), then expanding westwards (Manifest Destiny, Mexican-American War), getting rid of entities which could be misused by foreign powers to "divide and rule" ("Trails of Tears" of the unfortunate "losers" of history), and the consolidation of own strength (Monroe Doctrine/Spanish-American War).
And with that, the "ship" bumped up against the "dock", which was European rule and domination of the globe.
Didn't anybody notice?
The history of the west I guess, in a five minute nutshell...
1
-
1
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS/GLOBALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS/MILITARISTS. Their branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
1
-
The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
1
-
Thr root cause of 90% of the issues addressed here, the the declaration of war by the USA. Almost forgotten today, the USA declared the War on Drugs and this declaration has been fuelling everything this video is complaining about....a sh*tload full of money, because once one declares a sought after commodity illegal, the price goes up and then starts funding criminal mafia-like organized crime. By golly, nothing, but nothing learned from the mistaken Prohibition (1920s), which lead to organized crime rising in the USA...
ISIS? Who created ISIS?
Here what everybody can do:
Boycott.
Not only boycott drugs personally.
Just boycott these fools in government. Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
The time is approaching.
For 50 years after 1945 the citizens of the USA have lived the "good life" at the expense of the rest of the world in the immediate post-WW2 years, when the rest of the planet was so weak it could not avoid US institutions/military/NGOs from imposing themselves, and vacuuming off enormous gain from a position of unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL invincibility...
Now, that ratio is down to 30% of the world's wealth.
It's decreasing...
What does the USA look like today? What will it look like when this amount of wealth of the world they can vacuum off, decreases to 20%, and then 10%? When US citizens finally get closer to a "fair share" of the world's resources/wealth, and have to make do with the same amounts as everybody else, they will finally find out what level of psychopathy they have systemically enabled inside, operating from within their OWN country/state. When they can no longer vacuum off the wealth of the world, in an unfair manner (50% for us, the 6% of the planet), they will start finding out what human nature is like.
When the current 4% of the planet, have to make do with 4-5% of the world's wealth and resources as other nations come and take a fairer share of these resources for themselves, the USA will become everything they have always criticized, and finally discover they are just like everybody else.
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
Ruth Bader-Ginsburg: "To Those Accustomed to Privilege Equality feels like Oppression".
In the coming years, Americans are going to start feel soooooo "oppressed" by the 95% of the planet, who somehow had to manage with the other 50% of the wealth/resources for the fifty or sixty years after World War II.
America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this desirable disparity continues.
Set up "patterns" of European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
CONTROL the access to its own POWER.
Keep others either "down" or "out" per "rulings".
No, that isn't a "conspiracy theory".
It is "divide and rule", in different contexts, on different tiers, and in different eras of history.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
CONTROL the resources, which are the limiting factor (NOT "money" which is simply a "means" to divide)
Find volunteers and local ambitious rulers who collaborate, who "dance for money", and the sky is the limit for the dividers...
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) as the template.
The strategy to avoid unity in Eurasia, or to avoid "avoid war" (note: double negative), has been the same for the past 200 years...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A very emotional argument, which is why nations need leaders who unemotionally judge reality, and base decisions on logic and reason...
"Right or wrong", or "Was it a war crime", or "Who started", is all irrelevant.
Our elites have divided us "commoners" and "grunts", and are agitating behind closed doors, while we do the squabbling...
Because there's always a big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
[britannica & balance-of-power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world.
Note: nobody in Europe ever applied for this "job".
It was simply imposed on the continental powers, decided behind closed doors by a few London lords without negotiations or accords with those so "divided"...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to play "balancing games" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...you loose your empire to the new kids in town...
From the unmistakable "Nr.1" in 1900, down to "merely on par" with Washington DC after WW1, down to "third fiddle" during the Cold War. All in less than a single lifetime...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. The world was divided in "East" and "West".
And down went the British Empire too...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
1
-
HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books.
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source)
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies.
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
EPISODE I:
"... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies (ALL MORE THAN ADEQUATELY ELABORATED in the below comments section) called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
EPISODES II thru IV:
Lotsa other stuff happening.
EPISODE V:
If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003
Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice.
Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power.
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hamas, just like every single "terrorist" organisation EVER, at any point in history ever, in any geographical location ever, by any religion ever, are always an EFFECT of oppression.
The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they created themselves with own PREVIOUS political actions, as terrorists...
Terrorism/Freedom fighting (POV) is always an "effect" not a "cause."
If you live in the west, then you (personally), or your parents, grandparents or previous generations have never ever ever fought anybody your own leaders have not personally set you up against.
Try me on this one.
Name me the war, incl. this current "War on Terror", and I'll inform you how your own government created it (aka "lay the foundation").
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jhnssch6744 Maybe read my comment again :-)
No US politician from either party will end the War on Drugs, the root cause of so much violence.
Read the WIKI article on the War on Drugs, which is a good, neutral analysis.
Because for more than 30 years million dollar "consulting fees" have been paid to analyze the efficacy of "fighting drugs", and all of them have reached a similar conclusion.
"Fighting drugs", especially abroad, to the tune of 50 billion bucks each year = effect = zilch, zero, nada, nill, nothing...
Yet, good ol' USA carries on fighting...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Brits thought they were sooooo clever and make a "pig's breakfast" out of Europe, as they always did as a matter of policy.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister [rolls eyes and laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister (shortened)
No "satire" there at all.
Not "funny comedy" at all if one ends up as a "tool" of London's little divide and rule schemes.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists...
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against Germans and Russians (see Limitrophe States) and Russians against Romanians (see the Little Entente).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife. Divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so they could pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Ask the affected millions what they wanted for themselves? Nah. That was below the lords...
So in 1939 Stalin and Hitler came along and made "a pig's breakfast" of the London lord's little scheme for their "divided continent" (see Secret Protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact). They colluded, and made a pig's breakfast out of Poland. A pig's breakfast out of the Little Entente. The Limotrophe States? Right...more breakfasts for the pig's...
The lords wanted to play divide and rule with the continent's inhabitants indefinitely, and turn them into tools for own gain, and in the end the UK became a junior partner and tool of Washington DC, and they lost their Empire. Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945 and a subsequent few years.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was reduced to the status of "a scrap of paper".
Awww. Sad. No nukes for the "special relationship" best fwiends 😅
Subsequently Washington DC used British weakness and made a pig's breakfast out of British markets (economic warfare), and re-divided the world into "east and west".
Didn't anybody notice?
The world went from a divided continent, to suit the expansion/protection of the British Empire/London, to a divided world, to suit the expansion/protection of The American Century/Washington DC.
Awww...poor British Empire.
They wanted to "sow" their pig's breakfast to everybody else, and evtl. ended up "reaping" and being forced to eat their own words.
Lovely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bk83861 As a "strategy", it started with the age of empires.
Unfortunately, ALL the people of the Levant (most of which are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries.
First it was Rome/Constantinople, then the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (ME was the "playground" during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent: classical "divide and rule".
For that the constant acts of violence all over the ME are very convenient in propaganda, to rile up the masses with (quote) "beheaded baby talk"...
if you wish an honest answer, then please address the question: Who sowed the seeds?
After the watershed in history which was WW1 (end of the rule of the Ottomans), what was the status quo and who intended to change it?
The indigenous population, or the EUROPEAN "empires" and their policies and agendas?
1
-
1
-
What you can personally do.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
The USA and divide Europe and rule the world...
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
Regarding in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's leaders, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement, amongst other less "valuable" suitors (like Germany, see below comment), was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped in to avoid any form of continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below).
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises" :-)
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below comment explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
"Right or wrong" is of course easily and neutrally determined by "putting oneself in the shoes" of others.
When it came to "little nations being thrown to crocodiles", own interests came first.
Principles went overboard.
What aided in dividing Europe came first. The independence of little nations? Not so much...
Washington DC: "Principles like we showed in 1905? Nah. Let's ruffle some European feathers."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Theories based on good vs bad leave a lot of room for bias and interpretation depending on the vantage point of the storytellers of history. These stories are therefore overwhelmingly subjective, and therefore appeal to the emotions of an audience.
On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: The theory is a systemic analysis which is overwhelmingly neutral and objective and is therefore a dull topic to most people on the planet.
Why "dull"? Because people want to hear "stories".
The theory, however, is not a "story".
It states how intentions lead to effects.
At its core level, the theory states that throughout history there were two opposing forces in action when it comes to the concept of gain. All other human interaction when it comes to the topic of gain are subject to this. These opposing forces are not the commonly held truism as being the forces of good vs. bad/evil, but rather those forces which wish to unite to create their own systemic concord, using a variety of techniques, and those forces which gain from division, using a variety of techniques of power.
What evolves out of that as causal chain of events is then the friction, which is created as these opposing forces collide, which then fosters the emergence of narratives of good and evil, by providing the catalyst (human nature). Note: words have definitions and meanings and context matters, not only when it is beneficial from their own standpoint.
Every single struggle for power ever, every single crisis about a man-made system ever, and every single war ever, has arisen out of these two opposing forces of concord/discord (causality). Anybody may of course try to find exceptions to this rule, and will find none, unless one engages in typical human behavioral patterns.
Name the struggle, and one can point out whether it arose out of the attempt to create concord, or discord. Every single good vs. bad narrative (the "stories" people tell themselves, as they are creating systemically useful "ingroups and outgroups") ever has arisen from this very simple axiom.
On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: At its most fundamental core, the theory states that where there are intentions by systems to create unity, the opposing forces to such unity, or systemic actors, would then try to divide observed forces of unity, using key strategies, and vice-versa: where intentions of trying to create division are observed by actors trying to create unity in systems, key strategies are employed to overcome these divisions, to achieve unity in a system. These take place at the same time, making a timeline difficult to assess, contributing to the favoring of pleasing narratives for own causes, as a way of convincing large numbers of people.
Like a double-helix, these forces envelope the timeline of history. It does not HAVE a "start" or "stop."
The tier of interaction is irrelevant, and where there is an intention of achieving systemic gain, the strategies will closely resemble each other: from the micro- to the most macro level of all: International Relations.
Overy's 8 causes fits in perfectly as the "human catalyst" part of the above theory, which is often self-serving, with the intention to create pleasing narratives for the own "ingroup."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Around 1900:
There was an informal alliance of "English speaking races" taking shape, which was busy "informally nodding off" each others' conquests.
The logical conclusion with regards to that should have been that according to age-old rules, the answer would have needed to be to create an alliance of "non-English speaking...ahem...'races'..." (to quote the advocates of "English speaking races" ruling the world").
Logic/reasoning: "Balance of Power"-strategy, which is neutral and unbiased.
The fools were elsewhere.
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: Edward in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.'
An ancillary detail, which seems to have gone under in the clutter.
"Civilizing factor" of course, nothing else but the hooded language of these "few" to kill a few people every now and then, in order to gain themselves, while convincing millions that they were the 'good cops'...
A few key London leaders thought they could use their geographical advantage to divide the continent, and thereby always be in a position "to rule" during crises and wars. In the end they became overpowered themselves: In the reality of strategy, the Truman Doctrine was the de facto "division" of Europe by Washington DC. Note that in geography and in geopolitics "Europe" includes GB and Russia. Germany could be "kept down", and the old friend and ally Russia was kept out as a matter of doctrine.
"Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with (feelings). As Huxley remarked ... the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny 'failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.'..." Neil Postman.
Huxley is less well-known, but far more correct.
The information, sufficient to understand "what happened" (in history), and "what is happening today" (news/headlines) is out there. But "what happens/is happening" is drowned out by a cacophony of irrelevant information, leading the overwhelming majority of people to simply "switch of"...simply repeating "narratives" in order to fit in with their surroundings.
Majorities ending up thinking their own "narratives" are the only correct ones.
Mission accomplished.
That is what strategists aim to achieve.
"Divide and rule/conquer."
Europe has been "divided" and "ruled" over for more than a hundred years.
Huxley points out how being confronted with millions of ancillary details, to confuse and divide cause most people to simply switch off...
Today, the problem is not that there is too little information which is "controlled by a few 1%-ters" (Orwell).
The issue is there is too much clutter (Huxley).
Huxley correctly points out that leaders don't really have to hide/burn much with "Operation Legacy"-style deceit, one just has to make it too boring or complicated to read for the overwhelming majority of citizens of a country. That makes the deceit right out there in our faces.
Those so convinced pay the taxes to bankroll the "cops", while the profits have always been raked in elsewhere.
Of course (reality) "military industrial complexes" have existed ever since the first blacksmith realized he could earn more by selling swords to a rich king, rather than to sell ploughs to poor farmers...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Totally beside the point....
Churchill was a terrible strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created *facts*. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thelastaustralian7583 Capturing the hearts and minds of the (mainly) young, rebelious, and easily-influenced, is a long-term goal of what W.T. Stead set out to do as the "Americanization of the World" (book) on all tiers: ideology, food, industrial products, movies, language, etc...
Of course, what he didn't mention back then almost a hundred years ago when this global strategy started, was that this was in effect an old Roman-era strategy of power: to morph the conquered, to become "like Rome." Fill the bellies of the global masses ("Bread") and distract them with entertainment ("Circusses").
Cheers from Spain 👍✌️
1
-
The sunk cost fallacy moment is nearing fast. The collective hive mind in the capital cities in the USA/collective West must decide soon whether to "write the Ukraine off" or "invest more". Do not expect a wise answer from those who do not intend to suffer from any effects their own decisions will result in. According to the strategies of the wise, it states "if all else fails, retreat" (see the 36 stratagems of power).
The framers/manipulators in power have already "tried everything else" and failed, but do not expect them to "retreat" and lose their "investments." They will "Pivot to Asia" (Iran, South China Sea, or thereabouts) and sacrifice your daughter (current debates) before they send their own sons off to the wars they have lain the foundations for. That was not different around 1900, than it was around the year 2000.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FREEDOM vs. CONSCRIPTION
I just came here from a video with thousands of angry comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, Germans, Poles, etc. stating "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go", or anger at incompetent politicians. They mirror those made by thousands of comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand how power works. It does not matter what they think. It was what millions of young men already said a century ago in the leadup to their governments' declarations of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me".
There can only be a few "winners". The rest are the systemic cannon fodder for the gain of those who pass the buck. The "buck passer" is of course the weakest of all minds. Democratic systems of course offer the perfect environments for the opportune for eternal "passing the buck": none of these leaders ever did anything wrong (sic.), nobody ever decided anything bad (sic.), and everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and lower-tiered finger-pointers...
Here is what they did in both cases (around 1900, and again around the year 2000). Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power in times of peace, by the aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) by men who knew that neither they, nor their own offspring or friends, would ever have to face the consequences of an own unjustifiable standpoint. That means doing to another state/country/alliance what they would never consider acceptable, if done onto them: encircle them, encroach on them, restrict a fair access to the globe's resources.
How do we know this is true?
Because it actually happened, and can be observed.
"I no longer listen to what people say, I just watch what they do. Behavior never lies." - Winston Churchill
Yes, Winnie. What can be observed, and plotted on the map, is not a "lie".
Humdeedum some time passes. By golly, no more personal "freedom", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the muddy trench to enforce Step 1. Guess who "wins"? The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup over the world. Those who hold the GEOGRAPHICALLY opportune advantage of the "higher ground" or the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
If history has taught us one thing, it is that for those who stand nothing to lose personally (or for family/friends) that if all else fails, they take the plebs to war.
1
-
@fernandez6143 The concept of an "occupation" seems to be hard to grasp.
The landgrabs after the 6-Day War were illegal according to international law. Waging a "preventive war" or a "war of choice" was not illegal, but all the subsequent landgrabs were.
According to international law, these territories are therefore still "occupied".
" ...We had three wars which we fought without an alternative. The first, the war of independence, which began on Nov. 30, 1947 and lasted until January 1949 ...The second war of no alternative was the Yom Kippur War and the war of attrition that preceded it ... Our other wars were not without an alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice ... In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation." -- Menachem Begin, Aug. 8, 1982, Israeli National Defense College
Begin stated clearly that Israel had fought three wars before which it had a "choice," meaning Israel started the wars. In legal terms, this is known as "preventive war," which is not illegal. However, taking land against international law after such a war, is illegal. Note that fluffy language like "in the noblest sense of the word," highlighted above, is not a legal term but gangsta talk.
Israel is still the occupying power.
That is what the law states. One can whine about laws, but that doesn't change a law. Everything one can come up with in defense of Israel, will automatically mean apologia for the occupying force. Everything one states, either ignores or apologizes for the stronger side in a conflict, which is enforcing an illegal occupation.
Every conversation which does not stress the fact that one side is the occupier, the other side the resistance, is biased towards imperialism.
Every news report must start with explaining who the occupation power is, so as not to confuse the timeline.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The bomber stream tactic was a great success in ironing out the flaws inherent in warfare.
What to do about the large number of rookies, and the large number of 'average blokes', who tried their best, but were just no up to the standard?
The answer was to use the best and most experienced crews as pathfinders, and to direct the vast majority of the average blokes and rookies to bomb whatever had been marked by the pathfinders.
Actually, that is a bit a a no-brainer, since that was exactly what the Luftwaffe was already doing during the Coventry raid (X- and Y-Bomb aiming guidance)
Now, all that would be needed was wise leadership to give the order to 'mark' the correct target.
A target which would aid the ground soldiers fighting on the front lines, without having to go the detour of "removing 88-mm guns from the front lines...'
WTF? Instead of merely removing the 88-mm guns from the front lines, why not simply destroy the factories where they are being built, using said tactics.
In steps the British leadership, with a new idea....
Let's bomb city centers, and kill women and kiddies....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Look at some statistics.
Almanacs with information on mining indexes were not a secret pre-war, but indeed publicly available. That these figures wouldn't drastically rise during war, another nobrainer.
No, central Europe didn't have nearly as much oil as the rest of the world (Romania, Galicia, and little bits scattered here and there).
That wasn't a secret.
That Europe didn't have raw materials (other than coal and iron ore) was no secret either.
But. You can't make a tank or and aircraft from "iron ore".
For high-grade steels and alloys one needs chromium, nickel, manganese, tungsten, etc.
Also very little available in Europe.
Oil was just one aspect.
Even if one can make oil from coal, the amount would always be limited, and allied leaders knew this too.
It wasn't the bombing which limited German production.
It was a lack of raw materials.
That was also known at the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are you a citizen of the world, and wish to contribute a small share to end the grip the global elites have on the narrative of history?
Are you American, or European? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from the multitude of military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any platform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Why do we know this? Because good people have been voting, and posting, and debating, and using their freedom of speech, and protesting for hundreds of years, but the grip the elites have on the plebs has NEVER changed.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unraveling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting all international big brands.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small local companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever and whenever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone," or "but, but, but...your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be perfect...
Methodology: JDI and make it a long term lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk trend, because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate interests. Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small local companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Do you wish to fight meddling globalist empires?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influential GLOBAL ELITES only REALLY start "caring" (sic.) when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You will own nothing and be happy."
First, they came for the mom and pop stores, but we had Amazon & cie., and did not care.
Then, they came for the farmers, but we did not care for we had Walmart shelves packed to the brim...
Finally, the corporations came for your house, and there was nobody left to speak for you.
How convenient if family-led businesses and farms all over go bankrupt. The corporations can swarm in, get the land cheaply, and feast on the dividends of renting the property back to the original owners.
In the end, you will own nothing, but you won't be happy.
1
-
Because too many westerners automatically side with their empires...
If any individual starts off by saying that "Hamas/Palestinians have no rights to..." then what such individuals are actually saying is that "Nelson Mandela/non-white majority (ANC/1960s thru 1980s/Cold War) had no rights to...", and then going a bit further back, saying that "Irgun, Lehi, the Stern Gang, or the Haganah had no rights to create Israel using terrorism in the first place...", per implication (and that Israel "had no rights to choose terrorist like Ben Gurion as leaders and founding fathers"). Further back as standpoint, that the "Revolutionary USA had no "rights" to stand up to imperialism, and choose a bunch of terrorists who killed hundreds of thousands, as founding fathers (British perspective of things about the local "terrorists/revolutionaries" going against their British laws, and British sense of justice, trying to take something away from them).
1
-
1
-
My advice to the leaders of the BRICS nations would be to always doubt the "offers of entente/rapprochement/allignment/alliance" originating from the Atlanticists' sides.
The issue is that these "offers" do not solely stem from the desire for peace, but are driven by the desire of Washington DC elites to CONTROL the rest of the planet (Atlanticism).
Therefore, guard well what has been achieved so far with the SCO/BRICS. It has a historical precedent in Europe.
Even if these US "think tanks" who make such offers have benevolent intentions, they are not in control of Washington DC/Pentagon, London City. The intention of tgese outsiders is to get into a "system" (strategy: "center of the chessboard") and then break it up from the inside.
The USA already did this in WW1, to contribute greatly in the "break up of Europe", with the stipulations for the Armistice (1918), the 14 Points/Versailles, thereby taking over the role London played before that (pre WW1/WW2).
There exists a similar construct as BRICS/SCO was for East Asia, in Western European history. It was the Treaty of Björko (1905), which in conjunction with the Triple Alliance (1879/1882) formed the foundation for a comprehensive continental European security agreement, which certain London actors, in conjunction with Paris then proceeded to torpedo with the Entente Cordial (divide and rule/conquer). The strategy by London/Washington DC of breaking up an agreement of neighbors by/for mutually beneficial cooperation rhymes throughout history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@voiceover2191 No, I'm saying that the people who lived on the Arabian pininsula and the Levant have always been the tools of Empires, and were never given the right to determine their own borders according to their own priorities.
The way they were carved up, and had lines drawn around them, was always for the benefit of the outside empires.
Before WW1, it was Rome, interspersed by other periods of outside rule (Crusades), then the Ottoman Empire.
After WW1 the outside determining powers were European empires.
The borders today would have looked a lot different, and the region today would be a lot more stable, had the Arabian pininsula been allowed a natural political development, and the people here given self-determination to decide their own borders without outside political and imperialist meddling.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@isaac827 Here is what happened, in broad strokes...
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages.
In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era instruments of POWER), but cannot be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lexielou8994 Errol doesn't know that if these people fond him alone in a dark alley, it's "game over"...
11th Hour Remnant Messenger, American Renaissance, American Freedom Party, American Nazi Party, Church of Jesus Christ-Christians, Aryan Nations, Asatru Folk Assembly, Heathenry movement, Council of Conservative Citizens, Creativity Alliance, the World Church of the Creator, Creativity Alliance or Church of Creativity, RAHOWA, EURO, Hammerskins, Identity Evropa, Ku Klux Klan, National Alliance, National Association for the Advancement of White People, National Socialist Movement, National Alliance, Nationalist Movement, The Order, Northwest Territorial Imperative, Pacifica Forum, Phineas Priesthood, Christian Identity, Volksfront, White America, Inc., White Aryan Resistance.
Then the cops will come, look at his body and say "nothing to worry about folks...move along...nothing to see here...move along now...everything under control...nothing to worry about...."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matsjonsson9492 The word "snowflake" is a right-wing insult against liberals.
I'm using it sarcastically.
For context:
From thinkprocess
Before last year, snowflake-as-slang lingered on the fringes of the lexicon. It was a largely non-partisan slight — a mean, though not hateful, dig at millennials perceived to have an outsize sense of their own individuality....
.... as 2016 dawned, snowflake made its way to the mainstream and, in the process, evolved into something more vicious. The insult expanded to encompass not just the young but liberals of all ages; it became the epithet of choice for right-wingers to fling at anyone who could be accused of being too easily offended, too in need of “safe spaces,” too fragile.
You can see this linguistic evolution play out on Urban Dictionary: The 2008 definition of snowflake was “a person who think they are OMGUNIQUE!, but is, in fact, just like everyone else.” That was redefined in May of 2016 as “an overly sensitive person, incapable of dealing with any opinions that differ from their own. These people can often be seen congregating in ‘safe zones’ on college campuses.” A more aggressive definition went up the following month: “An entitled millenial SJW-tard who runs to her “safe space” to play with stress toys and coloring books when she gets ‘triggered” by various innocuous “microsaggressions’ [sic]
1
-
1
-
Die USA waren schon immer ein verdecktes, narzisstisches, egozentrisches Imperium, das sein wahres Ich hinter einer offen verkündeten Historizität als „Retter der Welt“ verbarg. Das ist Selbsttäuschung.
Die USA haben nie gegen jemanden gekämpft, gegen den Washington DC sie nicht zuerst aufgebracht hatte, und kein amerikanischer Soldat ist jemals irgendwo auf dem Planeten gestorben wo es nicht hauptsächlich um "Intressen" ging. Die Machthaber von Washington DC hatten zuvor immer zuerst den Grundstein für eine politische Spaltung gelegt, von der die US-Eliten zu profitieren versuchten, indem sie Strategien entwickelten, um ihren Gewinn zu erzielen.
In wirtschaftlicher Hinsicht erkennen die USA/der kollektive Westen die „Unabhängigkeit“ schwächerer Staaten an, untergraben jedoch die Souveränität dieser Staaten, indem sie sich in die inneren Angelegenheiten unabhängiger Länder einmischen. Solange diese Staaten klein beigeben und es westlichen Konzernen erlauben, einzudringen und den gesamten Reichtum ganzer Nationen abzusaugen, während die lokalen Eliten, die davon profitieren, stillschweigend abnicken, ist alles in Ordnung.
Lesen Sie Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket. Es ist immer noch die Vorgehensweise des „liberalen Imperialismus“, der nie endete.
Der Kolonialismus mag in den 1990er Jahren weitgehend „zu Ende gegangen oder gewandelt“ sein, der Imperialismus und die Strategie des Teilens und Herrschens jedoch nie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thevillaaston7811 What happens if you are an a-hole?
Correct answer: At some point a bigger a-hole will come along and screw you over.
Brits thought they were sooooo clever...
"Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
James Hacker : That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister.
[laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister.
No "satire" there at all.
That is how they "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
Right though to today, the lords are laughing at your apologia for their failure...
They wanted to play divide and rule with the continental powers, and in the end became a tool of Washington DC, and lost the Empire.
Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was a scrap of paper.
Awww.
No nukes for "best fwiends" 😅😆😁
Subsequently Washington DC made a pig's breakfast out of British markets.
But...lemme guess: That was London's plan all along, right? 😆😅
To lose Empire was all part of the "great divide and rule scheme", right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sad reality, if you live in the USA/collective West.
Your "deceiving class" does not care what you think, and they never have.
Ever since "Remember the Alamo!!" which is an APPEAL TO EMOTION (event: a bunch of slave-loving settlers, trying to get away from rules/regulations), and "Remember the Maine!!" (imperialist warhawks vying for expansion, looking for fools to do the dying), the majority of your fellow citizens WILL be deceived into their trenches...AGAIN. And again, the loudest screamers for war have virtual "trenches" in their mommy's basements, safely tucked away behind keyboards. A truism of human nature, despite the Bible warning "do not judge" (until you have ALL the information...ALL. OF. IT.)
Sad reality of the liars and deceivers? They are so confident in their lying and deception, that they are using the same "WMDs"-narrative that has already been proven a big lie, 25 years after framing it for a war of choice against Iraq.
"7 countries in 5 years"
Let no-one deceive into thinking "they" (other side) started it, in the "Who started it?"-blame game, AGAIN...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS.
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lutherblissett9070 Even more important than that, was to first wrestle the position of "Ruler of the World" from the British Empire.
The reality is that Washington DC did what advanced the American Century.
It was the strategy all along.
Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up power" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
Of course other excuses were made. "The commies are just too strong", or "sorry, we don't have enough nukes", etc. These were excuses though, not actual reasons.
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
With a simply "no", Washington was now the nr. 1, and the new "ruler of the world".
1
-
@lutherblissett9070 To achieve this, nuclear weapons had to be kept out of London's reach.
At least, for as long as possible...
Fact: Washington DC attempted to keep the secret of nuclear weapons out of the hands of London, if only for as long as possible, until "Rule Britannia" had collapsed, opening the way to "rule America"...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
The USA said to the rest of the world, including "special friends", you shall not have nuclear weapons!
[Google British Nuclear Program]
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
1
-
1
-
1
-
How geopolitics links the wars in the Ukraine and Palestine.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
It goes far deeper than that.
It was fundamentally wrong, and because it was fundamentally wrong, there was a price to pay for "the winners" too.
British leaders bombed the British Empire into ruin.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their pre-war markets, and were not going to give them back.
It cost the Brits their Empire...
Arthur "God said thou shallt not kill - I laughed - He sent the bill" Harris
Super cringe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is not about the specific "issue/problem/crisis/whatever that is mentioned.
If there weren't "a problem Iran" the USA/collective West would fabricate another problem, in order to have an excuse to meddle in that region.
This is divide-and-rule.
Imperialist playbook 101.
"When two neighbouring countries fight each other, just know the USA visited one." - Nelson Mandela (Region: Southern Africa/Big picture timestamp: Cold War).
The statement is not quite correct.
When two neighbours fight each other, just know that an empire has been there previously.
It's the old joke that "If two fish are fighting, the British Empire has been there."
It is a truism about imperialism in general, and how divide-and-rule works.
Set up neighbours against each other, using a variety of ever-consistent techniques and strategies. With absolute certainty, the tribal leaders of Europe joked the same way about the Roman Empire 2000 years ago, as these outsiders/Romans plus proxies, openly flaunted their "Pax Romana" whilst in the background covertly favouring one "local neighbour", whilst setting them up against the others, using whatever reasoning it wanted.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries so that any economic surplus generated by that country is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US government, and especially to US bondholders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is the dollar tributary of the weaker economies, and junior partners, being vacuumed off in order to please the controlling master.
To those who stand up to these systems, and who have their "princes" (Machiavelli/gatekeepers) intact, the citizens live under perpetual danger of becoming the victims of the written BLACK LEGEND of being the collective "bad guys" of history.
Outsiders will come into an existing political status quo (also covertly via NGOs as the strategy of "cultural- and political capture"), and these outsiders try to lay down the foundation for division by setting up a new-found friend (proxy) against its neighbours. If it is unsuccessful in one state (status quo), it will simply go to the neighbours and try the same. The more neighbours, the more chances of a successful division of powers, which is beneficial to the outside divider. The more neighbours in a region, the merrier the games. Because if these neighbours all end up squabbling and fighting, the dividing power vacuums off gains (of various kinds) in the background. Such implemented and leveraged divisions do not necessarily stem from evil intent, since most of the participants in a divide-and-rule strategy have absolutely no idea that they have become actors in a great game, the scope of which they remain ignorant of. Even those with good intentions (political doves) can create division, because the "political hawks" hide behind the stories the "political doves" write...
No amount of agreements, accords, negotiation or skills will ever stop the dividers, for nothing they sign will stop their divisive ways. The oil-rich Middle East, MENA-region is a perfect example of the above, which is globally practiced today.
The only thing which changed between the Roman Empire and the current times is technology, which vastly shrunk the world and the REACH of the controlling empire. The Roman Empire could only reach the direct Mediterranean, then later also parts of North Western Europe, but that is were the "reach" ended. Today, the strategy of divide-and-rule is implemented globally, since modern technology spans the globe and almost any part can be reached within hours.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here is what they say: That there will be peace in the world, and that everybody can live in Western-style prosperity, as long as everybody becomes like us in the West.
Here is what they tell you: That these US/collective Western governments and privatized imperialist instruments of power "support the people" in "standing up to neighbors" or "resisting their governments."
Here is what they don't tell you. That these regions (which can be plotted on a map as "march route of empires") are not going to be the last such promises are made to.
The intention is to gain these regions as jumping off points for further own "Smedley-Butler"-style corporate expansion.
Once one region has been converted, it is time for the "next in line" a few years later.
They never explain, however, HOW the entire world is going to live a "western lifestyle" if the resources are the constant factor.
They will come with their deceptive "logic" and "reasoning" and their innocent "questions" but they never answer such blatant and obvious contradictions themselves.
For some inexplicable reason, these slime-balls and liars who deceive these naive people in faraway places, don't tell these people that there are not enough resources for the entire world to live "western lifestyles" and even IF they convert, there is NO intention to have these far-flung regions to EVER have a "western lifestyle," because even today it is a well-known fact that it needs the resources of 4 or 5 planets in order for every inhabitant of the planet to live like a Westerner. In other words, in order to fulfill their promises, every American and Westerner (around 12% of the entire global population) will then also have to share equally, and make do with 12% of the world's resources: NEVER. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.
How do we know this? Because it has not happened so far. That means it will also never happen in the future, and they are lying in order to deceive people.
The intention is to let these people bleed and die for the own corporate expansion, and then have the "Blackrocks" move in to gut the available gems of the local economies, and enslave the people into eternal Western led debt-slave taxpayer status for the benefit of these outside corporations and their local collaborators, accompanied by the "eternal finger pointers" and their finger-pointy "logic".
And they need YOU to voluntarily propagate/advocate for such a slimy deceitful plan.
TANNU TUVA: A GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
No doubt, few people have heard about Tannu Tuva...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvan_People%27s_Republic
...a small republic in Siberia, with a relative poor population, and with border disputes with Mongolia, a fair amout of valuable resources, and therefor ripe for a little NED "Maidan"-style secret ops to topple the local government.
The next Ukraine, in a looooooong list of "next Ukraines".
Belarus (White Russians), Georgia, Armenia, and many more, which are well-documented cases of regime change: the playbook is always the same and this playbook is as transparent as glass. The fact that some of such regime change operations have failed, is irrelevant: they NEVER stop. They will keep on coming, until they reach they goals: bloodshed and death, for the own expansion.
Morph the system, and employ the people as tools to do the own bidding.
Move on, to the next in line.
There is ALWAYS a "next in line."
Most favorably, to employ local populations to fight and die while "extending Russia" (actual language used in strategy papers).
Then destabilize Russia from within, one step at a time.
Carve it up into smaller pieces, and use these smaller pieces to encroach on, and encircle the REAL goal: China.
Rinse. Repeat.
The "game" started by London (British Empire) continues, eternally, since there are not enough resources to fulfill the promises made.
These people in these faraway places are doomed to remain in poverty, exploited by a few local favorite elites, who will be the FAVORITES of the far-flung "empires".
FAVORITISM = A divide a rule technique of power (imperialism), all well-hidden behind flowery declarations, hooded language, long words, and (sometimes well-meant I assume) promises.
See the long list of such morphed systems: "democratic" but still poor, because the far-flung empires CONTROL the access to resources (gatekeeping = a bully tactic to keep others "down") all over the world. These people remain in poverty, until the excesses of their foreign steered elites reach such proportions that the people revolt, or choose populist/military leaders, and then that is the excuse used to topple the government, or try to coerce neighboring states to carry out a regime change invasion.
Imperialism 101, gathering their cheering dumbed-down slogan-chanting fanboys and gamerboys, too dumb to realize what they are signing up for.
1
-
1
-
@bubiruski8067 The Fnglish were simply replaced by the F'muricans at the end of WW2.
Now they are playing the same games with lives on the continent.
Their "means" are lots of "appeal to emotion", like in the comments section.
Fact: By own admission, and known to all, the USA misuses NATO as a tool to ensure its global hegemony.
For that it needs "Euroweanies" that it can manipulate.
Just enough emotionally steered "Euroweanies" who are easily manipulated in a giant "divide and rule"-game, which uses a variety of emotionally-laden topics to incite outrage, tear open old wounds (history), and/or use negative human emotions like greed or the fear of losing out, etc. to stir up trouble.
"Trouble" can then be swum in, like a fish in water.
Beware of the dividers.
Age-old advice: "When a man is prey to his emotions, he is not his own master."
Benedict de Spinoza
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]"
Or as the old "insider joke" goes: NATO's "function" is "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out."
Nobody needs "friends" like that.
When "mutual defence" becomes a secondary function, and is rated below "big power ambitions", it is time to think the unthinkable.
GB is no longer part of the "Three Musketeers" of Europe, so now it is up to France and Germany to get together and chuck the USA out, and create an own strong United States of Europe. My suggestion: Seperate economic issues completely (EU as a "pure" unemotional economic union), and then to start bundling political issues under a new umbrella called "The United States of Europe" to take the emotional flak off the EU.
The "EU" should only deal with economic issues, not political ones. All social and local issues should only be an internal concern of the nations and states, not outside meddlers. Political issues are a perfect target for outside "dividers", with their "divide and rule"-agendas.
Mr Spinoza again, speaking from the grave: "Reason cannot defeat emotion; an emotion can only be displaced or overcome by a stronger emotion."
Will this ever happen?
Probably at some point. But not soon.
No matter how many truly good people there are, with truly good intentions, it is easier to divide people based on what makes them different, than to unite them based on what they have in common.
1
-
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl/Historian)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses smaller nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
1
-
@bubiruski8067 From NATOs website:
"NATO Allies welcome Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO and they stand by the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance. Decisions regarding NATO membership are up to each individual applicant and the 30 NATO Allies. No one else. Russia has no right to intervene and cannot veto this process. Like every country, Ukraine has the sovereign right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security, one that Russia has also signed up to, including through the Helsinki Final Act (1975), the Charter of Paris (1990), the NATO-Russia Founding Act (1997) and the Charter for European Security (1999)."
Sounds "fair", right?
It is literally how "divide and conquer" works.
Seriously?
The "alpha" graciously "allows" (sic.) the little powerless "beta" to determine world affairs?
It is literally "history repeating" in "rivers of blood".
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...bye, bye..."
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct FACT: they did almost nothing to put their money where their mouths were.
Step 1: Polish leaders first baited by their own dreams.
Step 2: Then pwomises made.
Step 3: Then sold out, when they DID next to NOTHING to save "poor Poles".
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...bye, bye..."
Step 1: Czech leaders first baited by their own dreams of "historical gweatness".
Step 2: Then pwomises made.
Step 3: Then sold out, when they DID NOTHING to save "poor Czechoslovakia".
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct dates on the timeline, when THEY DID NOTHING.
The Ukraine the last 10 or so years?
First baited with "NATO membership" (2007/2008), and "being one of us" (EU)...
Then pwomises made, to "stand firm" and "we'll be there for you"...
Then sold out, and today our leaders are DOING next to NOTHING.*
Errrr...shouldn't our leaders have considered what they were going to do (considering the danger of escalation and Mutually Assured Destruction), before the guns started firing?
What is the pattern here?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lennard Church Go and argue with Menachem Begin and Mosche Dayan.
They HAVE ADMITTED that Israel started 3 wars.
What YOU think is irrelevant.
I don't have to listen to BS "History Channel"- propaganda from the 1980s...
But...I'll give you another chance.
The principle of your argument shall be EVIDENCE.
[Note here, NOT "speculation", "he said", "provocation, as a result of provocation, as a result of provocation", blah, blah, blah]
In other words, Arab documents, mass mobilisations, coordinated attack plans, etc. [HARD EVIDENCE] which will point to an eminent Arab attack in 1967.
PROOVE your allegation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest misconception about WW1 is that GB joined in to "save poor Belgians".
rotflmao
[britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power]
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
The Germans, became "the rival/enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
Make the strongest country/alliance the rival, and "balance it out".
Let's simplify it down a little.
A toff walks into a pub in August 1914 and says: "Listen up folks, there's going to be a war on the continent soon. You, you, and you!! Go and volunteer for a muddy trench, some PTSD, and to get your head blown off so we can balance those powers..."
Pub:
[sound of chuckles, followed by slurping ale]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 My comments are not about what each government did.
I know (and the leaders past and present also know this) that most people look at what happens, but not at what does not happen.
It's an old psychological trick.
Something happens, and the "bystanders" shout "I didn't do anything".
That is exactly my point.
It isn't only about what the various governments did, but also about what they didn't do, even if they should/could have without negative effects.
Despite everything the British government ministers did, no doubt the overwhelming majority were well-meaning in their efforts, here's what they didn't do: they didn't declare neutrality in the war between A-H and Serbia, along the guidelines set by The Hague for exactly these circumstances.
(note, I'm not saying they legally had to, but that they should have to spare the own population).
Note also that such a neutrality could have incl.any condition London wished to place on the warring parties (no tied hands as long as conditions are met).
Similarly when Berlin declared war on France/Russia, GB did not feel obliged to "stand by her alliance partners".
Why not?
Obviously, because GB did not have to:
There was nothing in the ententes agreements that was binding.
So London didn't declare war on Germany.
Since Russia mobilized, that was a serious oversight. GB "owed" Russia and France nothing, which was also the obvious and clear intention which London signalled.
The continental war soon to start had nothing to do with the alliance system (Ententes).
So far so good.
Re. the "soon to break out" war between Germany. France, and Russia.
London should then have declared their neutrality, stating the unbiased conditions for such a declaration. That could also have incl. clauses (amongst others) to "honor the neutrality of non-waring parties" (or similar formulations).
Note here: bringing up the "Blank Cheque" isn't a valid point, since the only thing revealed is that Berlin stated it would support Vienna in it's pursuit of justice for the assassination. Berlin's unlimited support for Vienna was not known at the time.
That is therefore "hindsight".
1
-
1
-
Comparing the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 to the Treaty of Franfort of 1871 is one of the more popular memes of amateur historians. One often sees this "tit for tat"-logic on YT. There is however little to compare, beyond reparations and territory (Alsace-Lorraine).
Let's have a look at what Prussia (or rather the newly formed Germany) did not do to France, a nation which had both declared war first, and invaded/attacked first in 1870.
1. It did NOT take away the entire French navy.
2. It did NOT take away all the French colonies.
3. It did NOT take away almost the entire French merchant marine.
4. It did NOT cut off parts of France, in order to give it to nations which never even fought (for example "cutting off" the Basque Lands, to hand over to Spain).
5. It did NOT create new artificial states to surround France, and to subsequently create new alliances with (For example "free" Corsica, and then subsequently created a German-Corsican alliance as an official "encirclement policy")
6. It did NOT cut off 15% of the French population, and simply "awarded" them to new, artificial, and independent states, leaving French citizen to travel across a foreign state in order to visit friends and relatives..
7. It did NOT steal pre-war French economical concessions, or French markets, which enabled France (the aggressor) to pay her reparations without the need of excessive foreign debts.
8. It did NOT eclipse the entire French economic sphere of influence in the world, leaving her economy with only France proper to deliver goods to.
9. It did NOT force France to destroy coastal fortresses in the Mediterranean Sea (I kid thee not, Versailles had a clause concerning German coastal fortresses in the Baltic)
In fact, France was (hint hint) even invited to the negotiations, and allowed to make counter arguments, resulting in concessions to the French side (for example, the status of the city of Belfort) in the Treaty of Frankfort in 1871.
1871, and 1919 just cannot be compared...
"Apples and oranges"-style comparisons to deflect from what really happened.
1
-
1
-
London went to war on the continent twice, by own admission, to "balance powers" on the continent...
London's standpoint, by own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell = the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
And so the London lords played their "balancing games".
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
How absolutely funny...
They gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire.
Good riddance.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They "hopped on the scale" and they "hopped" their way into extinction.
Good riddance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest long-term contributing factor for WW1 was the west's attacks on the Ottoman Empire.
Under constant threat of attack at the fringes (Libya, Egypt, Balkans, etc.), the Ottomans were looking for a protector in Europe and found one in Wilhelm II.
A strong alliance would have protected the Ottoman Empire from further western aggression.
Paris and St. Petersburg wanted to avoid this, at all costs...
For a close alliance between Berlin-Vienna-Budapest-Constantinople to become effective, land access was a prequisite...
Pesky Serbia was in the way, and gave Vienna a perfect pretext for war, by supporting a terrorist organisation (The Black Hand).
Just imagine, if the Ottoman Empire had simply been left alone, in peace, to develop or fall apart naturally...
As always, the vultures of history cause wars by their own actions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Yuri DeKhedBelgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB.
In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
The British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war".
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". Correct?
Germany therefore approached British leaders, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, there is only "history".
As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives".
One perspective should not rank higher than another.
Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable".
The reality?
As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Don't even try to insinuate that if there had been (for whatever reason) been a WW3, that Moscow, Stalingrad, Kiev, Leningrad, Warsaw, etc. would not have been nuked, accompanied by chants of reap what you sow or got what they deserved.
You see, Jack/Joe/Igor/Fritz/Alain "the plumber" are not the brightest.
Like dogs, their masters just throw a stick out there, and they run. The children of rote learning don't asked critical questions like "Why tf am I soposed to run after a stick?" 😆😅
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Two things would have stopped him even more effectively.
1) more gun free zones, guarded by professionals, just like during the Wild West. During the Wild West, frontier towns were gun free zones, and everybody who tried to sneak past was automatically branded.
Since gun free zones don't have dozens of hillbillies running around with guns, shouting "I'm the good guy with the gun", the authorities can zero in on the criminal in seconds.
Here, it worked, and there were 3 innocent victims and not dozens.
Gun free zones work.
2) A nationwide, restricted gun law plus standard test on ability (same as driving) would restrict access to firearms to vetted and trained "good guys".
In this example, the guns had to be bought outside state.
He had no access to firearms, and if there had been a similar law nationwide, he could not have bought a weapon. Period (note, black market prices quickly double and tripple).
Without a long rifle, there would have been even less victims.
With a fully automatic military style rifle, there would have been hundreds.
Gun control works.
1
-
The sunk cost fallacy moment is nearing fast. The collective hive mind in the capital cities in the USA/collective West must decide soon whether to "write the Ukraine off" or "invest more". Do not expect a wise answer from those who do not intend to suffer from any effects their own decisions will result in. According to the strategies of the wise, it states "if all else fails, retreat" (see the 36 stratagems of power).
The framers/manipulators in power have already "tried everything else" and failed, but do not expect them to "retreat" and lose their "investments." They will "Pivot to Asia" (Iran, South China Sea, or thereabouts) and sacrifice your daughter (current debates) before they send their own sons off to the wars they have lain the foundations for. That was not different around 1900, than it was around the year 2000.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FREEDOM vs. CONSCRIPTION
I just came here from a video with thousands of angry comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, Germans, Poles, etc. stating "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go", or anger at incompetent politicians. They mirror those made by thousands of comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand how power works. It does not matter what they think. It was what millions of young men already said a century ago in the leadup to their governments' declarations of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me".
There can only be a few "winners". The rest are the systemic cannon fodder for the gain of those who pass the buck. The "buck passer" is of course the weakest of all minds. Democratic systems of course offer the perfect environments for the opportune for eternal "passing the buck": none of these leaders ever did anything wrong (sic.), nobody ever decided anything bad (sic.), and everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and lower-tiered finger-pointers...
Here is what they did in both cases (around 1900, and again around the year 2000). Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power in times of peace, by the aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) by men who knew that neither they, nor their own offspring or friends, would ever have to face the consequences of an own unjustifiable standpoint. That means doing to another state/country/alliance what they would never consider acceptable, if done onto them: encircle them, encroach on them, restrict a fair access to the globe's resources.
How do we know this is true?
Because it actually happened, and can be observed.
"I no longer listen to what people say, I just watch what they do. Behavior never lies." - Winston Churchill
Yes, Winnie. What can be observed, and plotted on the map, is not a "lie".
Humdeedum some time passes. By golly, no more personal "freedom", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the muddy trench to enforce Step 1. Guess who "wins"? The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup over the world. Those who hold the GEOGRAPHICALLY opportune advantage of the "higher ground" or the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
1
-
1
-
1
-
EVERY "EMPIRE" IS ALWAYS WHAT IT ACCUSES OTHERS OF BEING (PROJECTION)
1) In 1907 Kaiser Wilhelm said: "Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."
Such words written down without the intention of ever becoming public, only give a clear indication of intent, but are not a plan.
Believe me, it means nothing.
2) After WW2, German strategist envisioned a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" to control: Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under German supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" (sic.) for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.). German strategists even suggested that "the destroyed parts of Europe might get a psychological lift from the project of exploiting" (sic.) Africa."
Of course the Germans were simply thinking about the psychology of the beaten and battered, and how good it must feel to be at least "able to kick down" if ones own future looks bleak.
Perfectly OK strategy, believe me...
3) At the same time, German strategists seemed to favor the idea that since there was a lack of civilized origins in Southern and Eastern Europe ... "and since the processes of government are destined to operate for a long time in the future, in many of these countries, in ways which are strange and uncongenial to Germans ... Berlin should make no moral distinctions with respect to local governments, whether they are democratic in nature or authoritarian ... only an examination of German interests at stake not just political, but economical as well ... should be in order when assessing foreign relations in Southern and Eastern Europe. Moltke goes on to recommend the naked exertion of German national power in influencing the behavior of new states, short of the use of military force, while downplaying the multilateral binding obligations that might result from the new systems system of Conferences." (loosely quoted)
Of course in the minds of such strategists, it is the people's own fault if their destiny was to become only superficially "quasi independent/sovereign" states, with own leaders to be dominated and directed as mere German puppets, and the people controlled by a police state financed from and by Berlin (and a few other "chosen few"). If some "scraps" fall off the richly-lain tables at home, onto the locals they should not complain, but be happy about such scraps...
In such a system, everybody in power understood that disloyalty would be met by immediate repercussions: a little "regime change invasion" here, and coup there, or propaganda campaigns of "discontent" funded from outside, or "disgrunted masses" suddenly finding themselves funded by sh*tloads of cash from secret slush funds...all depepending on what strategy best suited the country and times.
All with the subtle "message" to all others to "be nice, or else..."
Of course, all of the above were simply "ideas floated" on how to control "lesser people" so that 3% or 4 % of the population in this sphere of influence (so-called "Grand Area") can then control 50% of the wealth contained here.
Nothing wrong with that of course, since such instincts of greed are normal, as we shall see.
The "plan" to "rule the world" is of course based on loosely gathered strings of information from official and inofficial sources (incl. NGOs), strung together into a giant story.
For the average readers/viewer, the quotes above are of course part of "a plan" or "the perfect evidence" of how Germans wanted to "rule the world", and subdue the British Empire, their biggest rival.
Only...
...the words...
Are not German.
The first paragraph was made by Woodrow Wilson, one of the world's biggest advocates of imperialism/white supremacy (whilst hiding behind a "an image" of being a liberal/idealist) and taken from a unpublished paper of 1907, as quoted in The Rising American Empire (1960) by Richard Warner Van Alstyne, p. 201.
Wilson of course was simply looking at what had happened the past 200 years as the original "13 colonies", first fought for independence, and then started going N.E.W.S. (North/East/West/South), brushing away all in its path. They wouldn't stop going, until they bumped up against European imperialism, their biggest rivals.
The second and third paragraphs were taken from a series of Washington DC "strategy papers": "During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed."
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this."
(taken from, in parts: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive Diplomático y escritor)
NOTE:
Parts 1), 2) and 3) in the first half were taken verbatim from US leaders, and only changed to mask the country of origin. I did this to make a point, which is hopefully understood...
These strategies by leaders who "wanted to rule the world" is simply a part of that "1%" of history which just does not make it to the mainstream for wider audiences...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and lose is closer to what happened.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please :-)
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels, and any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain, simply needed to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. Once "divided", there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Some examples regarding the theory in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors would offer a foothold in Europe.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have such consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement after 1895, amongst other less "valuable" suitors, was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below). The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises made"...lol
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...lol.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics sterted with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947. It is alive and well. It has surrounded every aspect of power politics on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Same with the funding of opposing European leaders and states (for example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s).
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else, while "eating popcorn and chips"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
P Square False premise, because YOU think "Afghanis" want to kill Americans in America.
When did that ever happen?
Correct. Never.
The war continues, because of the PRESENCE of westerners in a nation (tribal structures) which has never had any historical ambitions to invade or rule over others.
Oh, and don't bring up (dead) Osama bin Laden. While he was living in Afghanistan, NOBODY (yup, NOBODY, neither your intelligence services, nor the local tribal leaders) could have predicted that he would plot 9/11.
Therefore, looking at the historical reality for Afghanis (NO historical invasions of neighbours, NO policies of "ruling the world", NO historical efforts to economically exploit or oppress others), then the answer is simple.
Just FUCKING leave.
Just leave THEM alone.
Get out, and Afghanistan will return what what it has historically always been.
The collection of bickering tribes, with petty problems, not bothering the rest of the world....
1
-
@Republitarian-g4h The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemon.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quite or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
1
-
1
-
1
-
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give a weak mind money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
ideology
Source: Dictionary
noun
1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of democracy"
Similar: beliefs, ideas, ideals
This "box" called "TV" billions bow down to, has got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives in sinecure comfort...
Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders who appear to them in these "boxes". The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) to kill for, is democracy in colusion with corporatism, and the slogan they chant is "Make the world safe for democracy".
Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders constantly lie and call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One ideal, must be wrong.
When one criticizes an ideologue's ideology, they expose their true nature.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."[end of]
America's allies and foes in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
Set up European and Eurasian nations against each other.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wilhelm is often compared to Bismarck.
An interesting "episode" regarding "duplicity" and the way European states interacted at the time, occured in the late-1870s.
Bismarck stepped forward and offered himself as the "honest broker" (Congress of Berlin) to avoid a potential war between the saber-rattling London and St Petersburg, because of the after effects of Russo-Ottoman War of 1877/78 (San Stefano).
As a "thank you" for his efforts as peacemaker and for avoiding war, Bismarck attracted the wrath of the Russian Tzar. Russian anger for getting cheated out of the spoils of this war between Russia and the "evil Ottomans who were oppressing Christians in the Balkans" (the usual widespread "appeal to emotion" for the masses, to cover up the real aims of wars: rule/domination/interests/territory/power/etc., and in this case, St Petersburg heading for the Dardanelles), was suddenly refocussed from London onto Berlin.
Bismarck had triggered a deep feeling in St Petersburg of betrayal: after Russian neutrality had done a large share of "enabling" Bismarck's German unification, St Petersburg now felt that it was obviously time for a "reward" of sorts. Berlin should in return, "enable" further Russian expansion south at the expense of the Ottoman Empire (Dardanelles, the "warm water port"-narrative) and support St Peterburg against British, French or Austrian-Hungarian protests as they realized their long-sought ports outside of the Black Sea ("Greater Bulgaria").
Even worse, while London walked away with a reward (Cypress), Berlin got a crumpled Three Kaiser League and an angry Tzar breathing down their necks. His efforts for securing peace between Russia and Great Britain, resulted in an enhanced risk of war for millions of people in Eastern/Central Europe. All exactly as the "pat our own backs" lords of London (Disraeli/Salisbury) intended. The intention of London throwing their weight into the after-effects of the Russo-Ottoman War, and by supporting the "bad guys" (Ottoman Empire) during this war, had from the outset been to drive a wedge between the "three kaisers", which were perceived to be a threat to the own British Empire.
On analysis, it was a London move to prevent a potentally possible alliance forming out of the existing agreement between the "three kaisers"(Germany/Russia/Austria-Hungary)by driving a wedge between the three.
Is that how London rewarded their peacemakers?
Bismarck: "Once bitten, twice shy..."
The apprentice Wilhelm: "What conclusions can we draw from the above?"
Strangely enough, the same actions by Wilhelm II (1905: the Morrocan "crisis" = avoid a potentially dangerous alliance forming) is interpreted by some historians as having an "evil", or "world conquering" intent, and is widely believed.
So how should we judge the attempt to drive a wedge between potentially dangerous alliances forming? "Evil", or "normal"? Surely it can't be both ;-)
Anyway...
After the Berlin Congress peacekeeping mission, Germany ended up in the vulnerable "middle of Europe", endangered by a 2-front war, with a shattered agreement and potentially without anybody to ally with at all. Fearfull visions of the days of Friedrich must have returned, and only the rapid action by Bismarck averted a disaster. Should Berlin have simply ignored Austria-Hungary's resulting weakness after the Three Kaiser League so rapidly dissolved, Vienna might have simply distanced themselves to look for a "good deal" elsewhere. Russia maybe? A war for Germany on three fronts? His very own agreement between the three empires and kaisers, to keep the peace and which was well within the scope of the "gentleman's agreement" of the Congress of Europe, was almost turned into a complete enciclement of the country whose leaders had stepped forward as "peacemaker".
Another example of the amorality of states.
1
-
LOL. No. He was a TERRIBLE strategists.
Luckily there were a few saner people around to reign him in.
1940 = Operation Winfried led to Nazi invasion of Norway (1941/42 troops stationed here invaded the SU and aircraft based here sank hundreds of Allied ships bound for Murmansk)
1941 = withdrawal of troops from N. Afr. to Greece (which had already defeated the Italians), meant costly N.Afr. campaigns right up to 1943. The Italians would have already folded in 1941, and Tripoli taken, not for the decision to divert troops to Greece.
1941 = sent 2 battleships into an airspace under Japanese control (Prince of Wales/Repulse)
1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the ENTIRE British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was RAW MATERIALS which limited German industrial production).
1943 = The ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that ONLY soldiers and tanks created FACTS. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tuban plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
I could carry on for a few more hours, but my fingers are tiring ...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Historically in East Asia, India and China were the biggest losers as outsiders came with the divide-and-rule technique of power (Era of Western Imperialism).
If one understands what happened to China during their "Century of Humiliation," means that one then already has the template to understand what is happening today. One can use the historical "template" and apply it in the same manner.
What happened to China during that era, is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today. Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the little minions benefiting from the outside POWER of imperialism to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) crises into "eternal problems," sit by and do nothing as problems foment into violence, revolutions, and wars, or carry out other forms of privatized interference (corporatism) under government protection, or without. Whatever works, details really REALLY DON'T MATTER. Once "fomented troubles" rise out of hand, claim to "just want peace." Then use the little minions as favourites (favouritism = a technique within the "divide and rule" strategy of power) to destabilize an entire region, steer them against other weaker entities, and/or employ them as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regions as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc.
Whatever works for the desired region to be divided/conquered or where CONTROL and domination is required for the economic systems of gain.
There is no way that current day Chinese leaders will not have learnt their very own historical lesson, and allow their very own history to repeat/rhyme, and allow such outside meddling in the own systems to gain traction, AGAIN for a second time.
Every nation or state has its own "Never again!"
European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonial ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon. These citizens, usually around 50% of entire populations, suffer directly ("heating or eating"), or indirectly (soaring inflation), these are all "effects," not to be confused with "causes" (see concept of retro causality, one of the most easily misused ways to skew a timeline of events). Some eventually even end up in the muddy trenches.
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their (temporary) GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
With re. to how tools are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also, that a "plan" and the strategy to effect the plan, are two different things.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as the USA implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combatted by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today, and there is MORE than sufficient evidence for this. Outsiders intent on playing the game, use the revolutionary spirit, in order to hop onto useful dissent, strengthen it, and insert levers which they can pry open to gain own advantages. Beijing is certainly 100% aware of this, so everything you are witnessing today is a political EFFECT, not a political "cause" as some leaders wish to mislead us towards.
Everything you are being told about Berlin, in stages after 1894, 1904, 1907, and 1912, with gathering momentum, were EFFECTS, not CAUSES. That was, based on observation, outside powers with the intention to "divide and rule" Europe, by encroaching/encircling the major continental power, which has never changed throughout recent modern history. The ONLY factor which changed over the last few centuries, was the "major continental power" which had to be CONTROLLED by the outside power who wanted a competitive advantage. The historical parallel, is the "Chinese Century of Shame"-historicity, and is well-known at least to the 1.4 billion inhabitants of China today. Certainly, they also do not wish to become "carved up" and ruled over by outsiders again, for a second time. The template therefore predicts a similar outcome, that of the more encroachment/encirclement, the more likeliness of the "breakout attempt" in some possible future.
Obvious solution for a more stable world, stop the encroachment/encirclement.
Both historically (post-1900) as well as our recent history (post-2000) there seems little incentive for those with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to do so, but rather the repeated attempts to search for tools to do such encroachment/encirclement FOR the outside power/s intent on gain.
Empires do not become dominant because they hand out candy and bouquets of flowers, as most realists are fully aware of, therefore the wise advice to always keep a just/wise "balance of powers. If not, fail.
Power flows to where the attention goes first, in geopolitics, in the form of political policies.
These can be studied by looking at the events themselves, not what another human being tells you (incl. this essay, which doesn't tell you anything, but implores you to start focusing on the well-known events themselves, from which one can then infer the underlying hidden policies, strategies, or objectives).
If you live in East Asia, beware of the "dividers".
The hawks will come looking for "buck catchers" and the doves will disguise it as the "helping friends"-narrative = i.e. the template of modern western imperialism. Hawks and doves working in close unison, although stated as being opposite poles.
They WILL come to you, same way as they came to the Ukraine, following the 1990s.
China has "understood".
India thinks it can "play the game" like France once did in Europe (becoming a "buck catcher" for the British Empire and USA), post-1900.
Do you agree with this macro analysis?
1
-
1
-
Awwww look.
Everybody awraid of the big bad wolf now...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
Don't be a sheep.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Apparently the London lords were too dumb to follow a policy they themselves had devised and imposed on Europe, to protect their "Empire".
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In February 1942, the decision was taken to make the German people (not the Nazi Government or military) "the enemy".
By destoying Central Europe, they destroyed their own "scale" which they intended to "hop onto" in either war or peace, this side now, the other side another time...
After the war there was nothing left to play "balancing games" with anymore.
They had destroyed "the scale" which protected their own Empire.
After the war, this weakness was then soon exploited by their "WW2 best fwiends", who would armwrestle the British Empire into the ground with a series of well-aimed but devestating own political/economic policies.
The British Empire reminds me of that cartoon of the dumb lumberjack sawing off the branch he is sitting on.
And today?
Still the kids are shouting: Here, a bigger saw..."
ROTFL
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UCTMBXR0KhdGj5MHdzwaQ3fQ No.
Disagreed with your final paragraph.
I said the lords in London "played balancing games" with the continental powers. That was the "attitude problem", and what I also wrote elsewhere before (History Room Channel, Kaiser Wilhelm video, in great detail).
It should also have been dumped around 1900.
There was never a "Pax Britannica" back then, same as there wasn't a "Pax Americana" after WW2, not today.
In both cases, just men with an "empire attitude problem" pretending to be honest brokers, while in reality heavily biased, mainly "in it" for themselves, or for own gain (sometimes personal gain ie vested interests being "sold" to the gullible as "national interests").
A United Europe plus Japan could have stood up to the USA/American Century.
On the same topic: why do you think the failing American Century is trying to carve up the EU, "devide and rule"-style?
Irrelevant of the changing times, or whether it's "lords" of yesterday or today's "boardroom dweller"-types: they play the same games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 You'd have to find evidence for such a theory.
Germany building a navy was the causal effect of the alliance systems (see also my comments under the Wilhelm video).
In a nutshell: At first the construction of German ships started after Russia and France United.
Later, as Britain claimed that her disintest in continental affairs was "Splendid Isolation" and not directed at anybody in particular (but in view of London historically "hopping around" in temporary alliances), meant that as long as London refused any kind of deal with Berlin (say, the 1890's), Berlin would have to count her in as a potential enemy in any continental war, irrelevant of "who started it".
As long as London refused any treaty, or even neutrality in continental wars, and with the habit of (by own admittance ) "always allying against the stronger power, indifferent as to whom".
That was the "London attitude problem" that Berlin was faced with after it became the continent's strongest single state, and also in the strongest continental alliance (still 1890's).
Berlin could not simply "dump" Austria-Hungary (thereby weakening its power, and thereby becoming "attractive/submissive" to/for London) simply to appease the London lords. Berlin had no other "natural" alliance partner.
As long as London stuck to her "habit" of "hopping around" making "temporary friends" (temporaty mutual gain) creating "temporary short-term alliances", Germany had to build a navy to protect her shores (cause and effect).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 I don't approve of militarism.
I'll redirect the discussion to the big picture.
Unfortunately, the London lords did not understand how balancing powers works.
FROM BRITTANICA
"Balance of power, in international relations, the posture and policy of a nation or group of nations protecting itself against another nation or group of nations by matching its power against the power of the other side. States can pursue a policy of balance of power in two ways: by increasing their own power, as when engaging in an armaments race or in the competitive acquisition of territory; or by adding to their own power that of other states, as when embarking upon a policy of alliances."
At the end of the 19th (let's say "around 1900") there was one chance left to save the Empire.
Unfortunately, the London lords underestimated the gravity of the situation, and made the wrong friends.
They thought that they could "snuggle up" to a predatory lender which had shown up to that point in time what it thought about the "rights" of the "little nations" of North America, and London would subsequently be manoeuvres into a position of "indentured servitute", losing its "house" to "foreclosure".
Whoever told you that what counts in the micro level, doesn't also count on the macro level?
American Century: "Sowwie....I didden know that markets and trade were the cornerstone of your proud global Empire... sowwiiieee....weally ...." 😆😅
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
Who GAINS if there is DISUNITY everywhere else in the world?
The deceivers, obfuscators, outright liars (by omitting), and all those who wish to GAIN from the DIVISION of others, will twist themselves into a knot in order to AVOID answering.
It is their entire nature. AVOID unity everywhere, AVOID answering questions, AVOID addressing the effects of their own politics, AVOID addressing the effects of their own actions, AVOID, AVOID... and then remain quiet with regards to the roles they played in fostering DIVISIONS all over the globe, even within their own peoples...
This can only be achieved from a unique position of unique POWER: geography.
Most of our history is too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture. After around 1900, Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, ALL Europeans lost. WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy or "Who is the top dog in Western Europe?", and a balance of power between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and Great Britain off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted. WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that the naval powers (GB and the USA) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination (see footnote). Side with the weaker power, to AVOID unity and a single great power rising in Europe.
Foster division.
Step 1: Deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others.
Then...
Divide-and-gain.
If not.
Divide-and-control.
If not.
Divide-and-rule.
If not.
Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
Divide-and-destroy.
In the end ALL Europeans lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After the Cold War this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards. The new "Iron Curtain" will soon be declared, under some or other fancy term, to divide the eternal "good guys" and the new "bad guys"...
Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain.
-------------
Footnote:
My sincere thanks to a fellow youtuber (@realvipul) who thought my one of essays explaining the divide-and-rule/conquer strategy of power was "TLDR" or too complicated and therefore ran it through AI...
"The comment discusses the concept of "divide and rule" as a strategy employed by powerful entities to maintain control. It argues that human systems are inherently chaotic due to the complexity of human nature, making them susceptible to manipulation through division. The example of the Roman Empire's conquest of Britain around the year "0" is used to illustrate how this strategy works, emphasizing that the motivations of individual collaborators are less important than the overall effect of division in enabling the empire's dominance. The comment then extends this analysis to the American Century, suggesting that the same strategy was used to exert influence over Europe. It highlights that the goal is to create maximum division among opposing groups while maintaining unity within the ruling power. The comment criticizes the media and political leaders for perpetuating a cycle of lies and wars, often under the guise of opposing territorial expansion while simultaneously promoting systemic expansion. In essence, the comment argues that the "divide and rule" strategy is a fundamental tactic employed by powerful entities to maintain control, and that understanding this strategy is crucial for comprehending historical events and current geopolitical dynamics."
It's divide-and-rule/conquer.
Europeans once grew into North America using this technique, morphed into "USA" and then gained North American hegemony using this technique, morphed into the American Century and gained global hegemony using this technique, and are now using the divide-and-rule technique as desperate attempt to hang on to global hegemony...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
US Congressperson Dan Crenshaw (note his military background, therefore knowledge about strategies) recently stated re. the concept of "rather letting them fight over there" (a reference to the strategy of "the proxy"), after a 40 billion aid package to the Ukraine: “Yeah, because investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea. You should feel the same.” (in a "shame game" with Republicans via Twitter who voted against the aid package).
Yup.
A "great idea" (sic.) to "invest" in the blood of a 3rd party fighting in a war which would have been easy to avoid, and earn some "donations" along the way. What's there not to like?
One might think that this is "anecdotal", but as Napoleon said only the coward won't tell you what he thinks in your face. And there are a ton of cowards in the field of politics.
One might think whatever one wants about Dan Crenshaw, but at least he is open about his disgusting nature.
If anybody ends up in a muddy trench, according to himself, it's not his fault.
Of course, its never the fault of the "system" he's in called "world alpha" either, since it's a free world, and if you're stupid enough to end up in the "muddy trench" fighting so that men like him (or, his "buddies" in "the system") can rake in obscene profits in the rackets they will always vote against avoiding, it's not his issue.
He'll be in church on Sundays, praying the loudest, and he'll be on twitter on Monday, making fun of those not smart enough.
I assume, he'll have his "flock" of supporters, irrelevant of what he utters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
During the Fist Cold War (1945-1991) the off-continental powers stepped onto the "G-G Line" (Germany to Greece), and had little minions man the parapets of the wall.
During the Second Cold War (1990s-today) the off-continental powers stepped onto the "B-B Line" (Baltics to Black Sea), and are going to set up little minions to man the parapets of the wall. Ratchet principle, since 1776...
This is divide-and-rule/conquer.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Korea, Vietnam, Ukraine...
Will the little minions ever learn?
Those who eagerly "carve up" others, even along arbitrary human-made boundaries on a map, dividing individuals, organisations, families, and businesses, are unlikely to agree with being "carved up" by someone else.
Korea was divided by imperialists during World War II (with the cooperation of the imperialist Allied camp) without consulting the local population about their priorities.
A few years later, they attempted the same in Vietnam, using the ongoing war of independence as a pretext (marketed as "the USA saving the world from communism"). This effort was unsuccessful.
The true objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China
According to Wikipedia: "Main article: China containment policy. As articulated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-term strategic initiative to encircle Beijing with the USSR and its satellite states, as well as: The Japan–Korea front, The India–Pakistan front, and The Southeast Asia front. Although President Johnson claimed that the goal of the Vietnam War was to ensure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a memorandum from January 1965 by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton indicated that an underlying justification was "not to assist a friend, but to contain China". On November 3, 1965, Secretary of Defense McNamara sent a memorandum to Johnson, outlining "major policy decisions regarding our course of action in Vietnam". The memorandum begins by revealing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965: 'The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they support a long-term United States policy to contain China. McNamara accused China of having imperial ambitions similar to those of the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States: 'China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30s, and like the USSR in 1947—emerges as a significant power threatening to undermine our importance and effectiveness globally and, more distantly but more ominously, to unite all of Asia against us.'
Note that this is a common tactic in international relations: accuse the "other side" of actions that one is undertaking oneself. The strategy of divide-and-rule is kept hidden, while the opposing side is accused of having malicious intentions, without providing any actual evidence (the concept of "accusation without proof"). To encircle China, the United States aimed to establish "three fronts" as part of a "long-term effort to contain China": 'There are three fronts to a long-term effort to contain China (recognising that the USSR "contains" China to the north and northwest): (a) the Japan–Korea front; (b) the India–Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.'
Later, McNamara acknowledged that containing China would ultimately cost America a considerable amount of time, money, and lives. As is often the case, "extending" a rising rival power incurs "expenses", including lives, which is why the intention is to create proxies in artificial entities like "South Vietnam" to carry out such containment for the dominant power.
This is divide-and-rule.
Favouritism, or the "paid/supported proxy", can be employed during peacetime to undermine rivals or wage subversive warfare, or during wartime to reduce costs and losses while gaining systemic advantages after a "victory". When a proxy fails to achieve this "extension of the rival", it is quickly abandoned or discarded to cut the "investment", and a new proxy is sought. This pattern was evident in the 1930s: in 1939, the "first proxy" identified was Poland, and when Poland failed to "extend Germany" for a prolonged period, it was decided to provoke either Germany or the USSR to invade Scandinavia (Plan R4). Ideally, both Germany and the USSR would invade Scandinavia, leading to a potential clash there, distracting attacks away from the heartlands. While Great Britain and France still cooperated, this was straightforward: both would benefit if the war "pivoted away" from Western Europe/British Isles into Scandinavia. A Battle of Britain and a Battle of France could potentially be avoided if the Germans became bogged down in Scandinavia...
That did not occur.
However.
Align with such individuals at your own risk.
They do not adhere to the Christian values they consistently boast as being "oh-so-superior" and worthy of admiration...
North Korea/South Korea (implemented).
North Vietnam/South Vietnam (intention/failure).
East Ukraine/West Ukraine (in progress).
Always the same playbook.
The modus operandi has been consistent since 1776: advancing onto another power's borders (systematically), also through proxies, then blaming those who are encroached upon/encircled if they react, or blaming the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War advance began in the 1990s, so even if the Trump administration did not initiate the "marching order", it is a fact that he did not halt it either when he had the chance during his first term (2017-2021). This can be examined as empirical evidence (observation/map) which clarifies who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should avoid engaging with debaters who base their theories on ideology or emotions, especially not if the advocate reveals themselves as dogmatic, prone to logical fallacies or cognitive biases. Such individuals are not interested in outcomes but wish to make "debates" go in circles indefinitely, obfuscating, sidelining, and finger-pointing to evade the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current trajectory of the empire, which began when the USSR faced economic decline in the late 1980s, with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the advance)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the advance)
Continuously advance, trampling over one red line after another, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). If anything negative occurs, and lives are lost, always blame someone else. This type of imperialist behaviour, as demonstrated by Washington DC and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not begin solely after World War II. This marching order has been in place since 1776, with the first victims being neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territories were coveted.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries so that any economic surplus generated by that country is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US government, and especially to US bondholders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It remains the same today as it has since 1776.
The reality is that neither Trump nor any previous administration has halted this (systemic) "slow march" of systemic expansion.
Be cautious of the ideologically indoctrinated: Like a child, they confidently repeat things they do not know to be true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Cuban Missle Crisis and WW1.
Of course the average history fan will ask themself the question "What does the Cuban Missle Crisis have to do with WW1?".
The answer to that rhetoric: Everything, because even when "only studying history", we are also (indirectly) studying human nature.
And human nature, unlike human behaviour, is a constant. It does not change.
Human behaviour of course changes (rules, laws, society, etc.).
Whether ancient history or modern times: human nature remains the constant factor.
The key lessons when comparing the two, is how a willingness to compromise averted the end of humanity in 1962 (or MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction).
The average history fan's take on the Cuban Missle Crisis is somewhat along the lines of "Nasty Russia wanted to rule the world :-) and threatened the good guys USA but the good guys stayed strong and won in the end because we were better people and ya'll know the good guys always win", or something simplistic like that...LOL
Far from it.
To those who dig a little deeper and discover all the facts, and are particularly not confused by history books/docs pinning a flag on a timeline, a completely different picture arises.
It was actually the "good guys" who "started it", by placing own nuclear missles in Turkey, on the Russian doorstep, thereby creating a security issue for the UdSSR which did not exist in return for "the good guys", who initiated/triggered//started the crisis. The Russians responded, by using the age-old principle of "What does it feel like?" (or the Biblical "put yourself in their shoes"), and thereby started placing their own missles in Cuba, on the US doorstep.
Irrelevant of personal "feelings" (sympathies, opinions, patriotism, "my country, right or wrong", slogan chanting, whatever): reality was created by "causality", not the opinions or feelings of individuals.
The above has a parallel re. the geopolitical encirclement/military danger of a two-front war of Germany/Austria-Hungary. First by Russia and France of Germany, then followed by Russia-France-GB in re. to mostly Germany. Then followed by Russia-Serbia attempting to do the same with Austria-Hungary aka "two front war" danger for Austria-Hungary. Of course the 3rd Balkan War which Vienna started in July 1914 was in response to a Serbian provocation in June 1914, and was a preventive war (see definition). It was started by Austria-Hungary, to avoid/prevent a potentially possible alliance between Russia and Serbia.
At some point one oversteps a line re. the security issues of another state/alliance, and one must first acknowledge it, then work towards a compromise.
So what did the "new alpha" after WW2 (Washington DC), do differently during the Cuban Missle Crisis (1962), than the powers did in the leadup to WW1?
And in particular the "leader of the world" which was unmistakably still London/Empire (early-20th century).
1) Washington DC obviously first acknowledged that Russia stood "in different shoes" (biblical logic), and had a security issue created by US actions
2) after the first step of acknowledgement, a compromise was made
So here is what the noisy "victory"-chanters forget to mention: The USA withdrew their missles from Turkey, and in return Russia withdrew theirs from Cuba.
*Both countries' security issues were (within the limits set by the status quo at time aka "Cold War") acknowledged, and then a compromise was made.
Obviously there were differences. There was obviously a difference between a short-term crisis (2 weeks in 1962) and long-term geopolitical changes (say, the 30 years leading up to WW1). Also technology, geography, political systems, etc. between the two events, so there is no need to point these out.
The factor of human nature was the constant factor.
Also of course the knowledge on the part of both superpowers that screwing it up in 1962 could never lead to a "win" for anybody, because MAD would have been kinda final for all...
The "lesson to be learnt" from WW1 was obviously at least partly learnt by the new alpha after WW2.
"Put yourself in their shoes", and compromise.
Obviously there is no need to make false compromises (google "argumentum ad temporantium" or a false/shifted "middle ground").
For example in re. to the leadup to WW2. In the leadup to WW2 and a shoutout to all the "Hitler fanboys": Germany didn't have these geopolitical encirclement/military 2-front war security issues, because the caring good guys (LOL) took care of this "German angst" at Versailles.
"Apples and oranges"-comparisons are invalid).
The leadup to WW1 was a clear-cut case of ignoring the security issues faced by the Dual-Alliance. The Triple Entente powers were willing to push and push until something snapped. Unlike the "new alpha" after WW2, there was an unwillingness by the members of the Tripple Entente to deal with justifiable objections.
In that regard, lets see what happens with Chy-naaah and Russia today, in a similar big picture reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unfortunately, it wasn't only "the French thinking about French interests (their "Empire") which must be considered, but also Brits thinking about their Empire, thereby ignoring common sense.
Unfortunately, rules went out the back door, but not logic...
British leaders were fools, and ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany, nor "dissing" one of these "balancing tools" (France), was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
[Search for: britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: "Divide and rule, the politician cries; unite and lead, is watchword of the wise."
Me: "Divide and rule, the USA/collective West cries; unite and lead, is watchword of the resistance."
Beware of the "dividers".
They will come with their promises and allures. When these dividers come with lies, death, and misery, they are always the "good" liars, thieves, and killers in the own "stories* they tell themselves. When the resistance finally re-acts, and lies, steals, and kills as a result of the previous actions of the outside "dividers," then this is (quote) "evil."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matsjonsson9492 Religion is a cancer.
Correct.
Problem is that emotional people are too dumb to realize they are being conned by organised religion.
As soon as human beings form large groups, they tend to get more corrupt and more stupid. It is almost as if stupidity is more potent than wisdom.
"Herd instinct" is mostly used in a negative conjunction.
Here is a general truth though.
People who feel imposed on, or under threat, almost instinctively chose "the strong man/alpha male". Fact.
That is so for all people, irrelevant of race, religion, culture, ethnicity, or class/social standing.
Threaten somebody, or impose on them, they will chose to follow their "strong men".
You have practically admitted that you understand this basic truth (your Newton comment).
The answer to the trouble "with Muslims" is to finally leave their world alone.
Oil is what everybody wants, but it's under their asses. US leaders are causing these problems.
They want a divided world.
Beware of leaving a single hegemon in the world. Because if history has shown us one thing, then it is the truth that if there is no opposite pole, every hegemon will turn evil (ultimate power corrupts ultimately).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The reason why a British and French war on Germany, or even a "little deal" with Stalin in 1938 wasn't possible, lies in the events at the end of WW1.
Both Poland (google the Polish Russian War of 1920) and Romania (Moldavia) occupied or had annexed territory which once belonged to Moscow's sphere of influence.
In 1938, this was simply the reality "on the ground", so to speak.
If GB or France had signed a deal with Stalin (in an effort try scare Hitler off from attacking Czechoslovakia), it would have played directly into the fascists' hands...
Since all of Central Europe was guaranteed by London and Paris ("Little Entente"),and the leaders here had even gotten the faintest notion that they were going to be "sold off", they would have allied with the new alpha-males on the block....Berlin-Rome (in order to secure their interests).
In other words, a deal with Stalin was only possible at the expense of losing Poland and the (already brittle) Little Entente nations.
Furthermore, if GB and France had made a deal with Moscow, Hitler would have invaded Czechoslovakia or bullied it into submission anyway, and in case of a British/French declaration of war, Hitler would also have attacked Gibraltar with the Legion Condor...
As the events of 1939 had shown, all of this would have been accomplished before the French had even put their pants on :-)
Stalin off course, would have done nothing, because his real aim was to cause a destabilization of the European order...
Both Hitler AND Stalin were playing the sick game of 'divide and rule/conquer', and the reason this was even possible lies in the events directly following WW1: Versailles, Trianon, Polish and Czech arrogance of power, little beta-males, stomping around Central Europe....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matsjonsson9492 A useful idiot is the one supporting the creation of tomorrow's enemy, by fighting today's enemy....which was created yesterday....
Remember Rambo?
Remember the "good Jihadists"?
Remember the "good holy war"?
Remember the brave women-hating Sharia Law loving, anti western ...ahem...stone age "freedom fighters"? lmao
I've already given you the 5 point plan to combat terrorism. using the method of "pulling the rug" (of support) underneath their feet.
It is the proven method: Irgun, Lehi, IRA, ANC, PLO, FARC, and dozens of other terrorist organisations were turned around this way.
Find the moderates on the other side, and make compromises.
America and Israel doesn't want compromise. They want eternal duress and war, which is why they support and fund contradicting positions on the other side, hoping that this would lead to unrest and a revolutionary atmosphere (Google 'divide and rule").
Do concentrate, and try to remember the things I wrote 5 days ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matsjonsson9492 I've just stated this.
Calling out for somebody's death, or bodily harm, and within the context of hatred.
In other words, a joke or satire on a comedy show is within context always ok.
However, if you're a radical Islamist organization and calling for the "death of the west" or similar (not a joke, satire, sarcasm etc.), then it falls under the hate speech law, and face expulsion from the host country you live in.
If there is a possibility to coordinate such hate speech internationally, websites and offices could be closed, if the members overstep the borders of rational thought.
Propagation widespread death of entire entities is not "normal behaviour".
It's actually quite simple.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dragosstanciu9866
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan (going through Belgium), but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB.
In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
The British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war".
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". Correct?
Germany therefore approached British leaders, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Anthony
Whoever said that molesting a child should be considered "normal"?
IMO, the current system of placing barriers (21 for drinking, 18 for contracts, sex, etc.) to adulthood is a good start .
Molesting a minor is therefore a crime under law, and it should be, and everybody breaking such a law is guilty of a crime.
Now, that we've got that assumption out of the way....
Laws are result of debate, and change over time.
What was normal 300 years ago, is no longer normal today (ask Shakespeare...fun fact, Juliet was 13 years old).
What is "normal" today, will not necessarily be "normal" tomorrow.
You've actually got it backwards.
Marrying kids was actually normal not so long ago, and conservatism fought to keep it that way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Note that according to Machiavelli, the "princes" connected to the land and who benefited from their hereditary rule were also the GATEKEEPERS and were connected to what they saw as theirs. Whether one likes this style of inherited wealth and power or not, their role was the gatekeepers of being the managers of own affairs. Opposed to that, in strategy and human nature, the "mercenary" is the OUTSIDER (internationalists/globalists) who came/come or the profit and gain and who are NOT "connected" to the land and its peoples at all, and place their own interests, often vested interests, BEFORE the people who live on the land. This narrative is often distorted today into meaning that "to be a Machiavelli is to be an a-hole" which is a distortion of what the book was about. Machiavelli states clearly to keep ones "princes" in POWER, for to lose them would mean losing the GATEKEEPERS, who via their own vested interests, also protect the people who live in entire regions of the world. Via Trojan Horses, "democracies" can be CAPTURED (culturally-, economically-, politically-, emotionally and militarily), as a process which can be studied as the actors reveal themselves through their actions/events. This can be studied as systemic analyses.
Today.
The "Blackrock"-leaders.
They are not "connected to the land", regardless of what they say.
Read Machiavelli.
(This connects to the three top comments. Cheers.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 1919, a new militaristic and nationalistic state (Poland) appeared on the scene, exploited a new political situation (Versailles), and took away large portions of a neighboring state with the consent of the winners of WW1. The railways were nationalized, and suddenly the taxpayers who had built those railways, had to pay transit fees for tracks they had built themselves, and which were vital to own interests
What was the French and British attitude to that?
"C'est la vie...", and "That's how it goes..."
What was the advice given to the Germans?
"Man up ! Stop whining ! Get over it and move on...."
Only 30 years later, the exact same thing happened to the British and the French in the Suez.
A new militaristic and nationalistic state appeared on the scene (Egypt), exploited a new political situation (Cold War), and nationalized their precious Suez Canal and which was vital to french and British interests.
Now, British and French ships would have to pay transit fees for a canal they had built themselves.
Ah, well.
What to do in such a situation if something valuable to own interests is taken away from you?
"C'est la vie?"
"That's how it goes?"
...or maybe this one: "Let's stick to our own advice and 'man up and stop whining!' Let's 'get over it and move on'...."
1
-
1
-
East and West, our own "attitude problem" re. "using soldiers to fight wars on civilians" the same.
Soooo
Franklin "first we made the commies strong, then we sang the Nam songs" Roosevelt
...teamed up with ...
Curtis "first we made it rain fire, then we got stuck in commie mire" LeMay
What could possibly go wrong?
The USA could have, and should have offered a conditional surrender, and used Japan as a bullwark against communism in Asia.
By 1945, Japan was already militarily defeated.
In both theatres of war, our leaders stupidly thought they could handle the commies and make little deals with Stalin.
"Feeding the crocodile with "little nations" hoping the crocodile would eat you last".
rotfl
And what happened?
Kicked out of China.
War in Korea. Still in Korea.
Then kicked out of Vietnam.
Hundreds of proxy wars on every continent.
Thousands dead, billions of dollars wasted during the Cold War.
Now "Chy-naaah" is a problem? Well, "reap as you sow" counts for all, or so the saying goes.
The Taiwan crisis? South China Sea? Suck it up, snowflakes....
Blow all your dollahs on patrolling the world...
A causal effect of a totally failed grand strategy.
The oldest war grand strategies are still valid.
"In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good." Sun Tzu, The Art of War
The mistake was thinking that "total war" invalidates age-old wisdom.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
During the Fist Cold War (1945-1991) the off-continental powers stepped onto the "G-G Line" (Germany to Greece), and had little minions man the parapets of the wall.
During the Second Cold War (1990s-today) the off-continental powers stepped onto the "B-B Line" (Baltics to Black Sea), and are going to set up little minions man the parapets of the wall.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Alongside other measures, the Treaty of Versailles was a "divide and rule"-strategy, by outside powers, intent on gaining power by dividing Europeans. This simple statement or theory, can be validated by simply investigating the events around the turn of the previous century, and cutting out the distortions created by "dissention" (note: "sowing dissention" in systems, is a means used in the "divide an rule"-technique).
There is a saying stating that if one cannot explain something in a few minutes, that it is probably false:
At Versailles, Europeans were "divided" with a "ruling".
The divide and rule strategy of and over Europeans, can be explained in three seconds...
Of course, no superficially observed series of events can be concluded to be "a non-falsifiable theory" (Carl Popper), if there is not a substantial amount of evidence to corroborate it, and if the reader wishes, the comments section under the "His--tory Ro..om " educational channel on "Wilhelm II" (documentary), has more than 100 essays going back more than 4 years, to provide more than ample evidence for the theory of how Europeans 1) were once "divided and ruled" over (after around 1900), and 2) are still being divided and ruled over (around the year 2000), by outside powers.
"The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: wrong.
It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid the divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use the technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
The Big Lie is the power of the divide and rule/conquer technique, and even the Nazis hid their "Big Lie"-conspiracy theory, behind an even bigger lie: how they intended to play this game until they got into power after their failed coup d'etat.
The "Big Lie" is not a myth but a misrepresentation of the truth.
It is the power of "divide and rule/conquer" which lurks behind every strategy they follow, in order to gain.
No human being has ever come up with a means to overcome this age-old technique of ruling over billions of people, because it is predicated on human nature itself, which is enduring.
No power player wants to become associated with authoritarian, or "colonial" tactics and strategies, or Nazis, so they cannot use it as a political means to attack rivals: it will immediately result in blowback.
The "Big Lie" conspiracy masked the divide and rule technique.
No power player can ever accuse any other power player of using it, since it will immediately backfire: the accusation of using the technique themselves, which in most cases of intent of gain will even apply***. The disguise usually comes in the form of scapegoating or another form of appeal to the emotion of listeners, or addressing and fortifying their already existing biases.
"Scapegoating" = an appeal to lower emotions of potential supporters.
In our divided societies, appealing to these biases might always be that tiny little "weight" that tilts the scale in very tightly run political elections.
Most power players read books on strategy, with the intention of using these strategies for personal gain, not because they wish to benefit you (the individual). There is always the urge to defend own favored systems, when one reads perceived "attacks" on these favored systems or own heroes, and the beloved own "-isms", which also reveal standard procedures, meaning the "attacker" soon falls into predetermined pathways to deflect and obfuscate from the core theory...
Great Britain did not "win" from the "divide and rule/conquer" system they had set up in Europe, which was a matter of long-term standing policy (historical analysis based on the observation of events), which resulted in London making the strongest continental power their "default rival/enemy" system.
Britons (average citizens) lost BIG TIME.
Most of what we are fed by our systems, as "rote leaning" details, are "99% ancillary details": not saying these are untrue or wrong, but simply that they are not as important on the ranking or "tiers" of events as geopolitics and grand strategy.
For these geostrategists, divide and rule/conquer is their main strategy, regardless of what you as an individual believe.
Footnotes:
***only applies in competitive "intent of gain" systems, not benevolent forms of reciprocal human interaction which are 100% fair, or such systems lacking "power" of any global reach...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fightttttt As they say, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"...
As Robert Kennedy Jr. notes about the history of the ME:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster
The USA absolutely loooooves Jihadists, as long as they don't act against the USA.
Or, that Biblical logic: "the people shall reap what your leaders have sown"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh, you mean a "Victoria Nuland" will soon turn up, handing out cookies? Old game...
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was peace, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces and walks off wit GAIN, when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
>>>
The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
>>>
The people of the Americas, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people into "ingroups". In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the USA's power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS. Eden was a status quo divided by lies and deceit. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the two Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly are two cheeks of the same gold-plated hind which sets out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, is the mirror of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets and becomes successful it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances.
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
It's divide-and-rule today, and it was divide-and-rule 20 years ago, it was divide-and-rule 50 years ago, it was the same strategy 100 years ago, and 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the locals were too weak/divided to unite.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." -- Walter E. Williams
1
-
Policies divide people.
People are not divided as a default setting.
They are divided by leaders.
The violence we see today was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal: minor offences like being caught with a few grams of weed...
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bomber "they sowed the wind" Harris
...was up against...
Reality "they ruined the British Empire" Bites...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It wasn't "a wrong turn" which started WW1. It "triggered" WW1...
The real "WW1", or first "great" war actually took place from 1803 to 1815.
In terms of scope and victims, it was mainly limited by technology. Still, despite the limited capabilities of the weapons of the times, there were more than 4 million victims, in all corners of the globe.
The first truly "global war".
Notice however how historians (correctly btw) separate this "first global war" (aka The Napoleonic Wars) into seven distinct phases, based on a scientific and exact analyses of the reasons/motivations at the time, whereas for WW1/WW2 there are attempts to create one big emotionally steered mashup.
Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, historians are of course far more candid re. "motivations/reasons" (note: the real reasons, not the ancillary details). Most people are entirely emotionally detached from events 200 years ago, so there is also no need to spin history either to appease an own population.
There are no endless debates about "Who started it?"
The Napolionic Wars were of course declared by London, as a preventive war, in May 1803, and the (correct) reason/motivation given for this declaration of war, by most historians, is that it was to "avoid the single hegemony" on the continent.
In 1914, "WW1" evolved out of a local conflict, which started in the Balkans, and through a few unfortunate twists and turns developed into the second truly "world" war, in order to establish domination and rule.
Hanlon's Razor states "not to attribute to mallice, what can adequately be explained by stupidity", and with WW1, Europe started its own demise because of efforts to remain individually dominant/relevant.
Of course, on the other side of the Atlantic, wars were always fought for unity, and common goals (aim of expansion).
The American Century was a ship already launched, but renamed halfway.
The "ship" started its journey with a war of unity (Civil War because of "poor slaves" aka "the emotional argument"), then expanding westwards (Manifest Destiny, Mexican-American War), getting rid of entities which could be misused by foreign powers to "divide and rule" ("Trails of Tears" of the unfortunate "losers" of history), and the consolidation of own strength (Monroe Doctrine/Spanish-American War).
And with that, the "ship" bumped up against the "dock", which was European rule and domination of the globe.
Didn't anybody notice?
The history of the west I guess, in a five minute nutshell...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The big picture in regards to the potential Anglo-German Alliance.
Let's not forget there is always a big picture.
"The Naval Laws (German: Flottengesetze, "Fleet Laws") were five separate laws passed by the German Empire, in 1898, 1900, 1906, 1908, and 1912."
[wiki]
Note that these had to be approved and passed in the German Reichstag (Berlin parliament), and were therefore not secret.
Without sufficient support, any bill (such as in any democratic process) could have been downvoted.
British "offers" re. "an alliance", or limiting the effects of blockades, or at least the "heartfelt desire" (LOL) of neutrality in case of a European War made to the continent's most powerfull country (alliance):
1898: The Chamberlain/Balfour offers re. "an alliance" (1898), serious efforts to achieve are generally considered (by most historians) as to have pettered out and ending in 1903.
1906: ...
1908: The Hague International Law 1899 and 1907 (an attempt by the international community in London in 1908 to limit the effects of blockades to short range blockades of ports only, which would therefore not affect neutrals or non-belligerents). This was negotiated, agreed upon, signed, but then not ratified by London.
1912: The Haldane Mission (1912). Berlin of course soon found out that Haldane was there to "talk, not negotiate"...
Weird...
Bait and switch....
Make a "sweet offer"...
Dangle a juicy carrot in front of the donkeys, hoping that the "other side" were "lions lead by donkeys"...
Potentially influence members of the German parliament, in the way they would vote on the Naval Bills (the typical "undecided" minister could be potentially "swung"). Or "dragging feet" with regards to negotiations themselves, until the date of the vote, thereby torpedoeing its implementation.
Re. the critical question concerning the obvious correlation between the dates of the German naval bills, and sudden London "friendly offers" re. alliances, talks regarding changes to International Law which would deeply affect London's "grip" (via the Royal Navy) on a continental power, or a neutrality accord with the continent's most powerfull state (and alliance, the Dual Alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary).
Of course "What about the missing 1906?" is a perfectly valid question.
The "naval act" of 1906 was merely an insignificant amendment, without great weight.
"1906 Amendment: Approved 19 May 1906; strength unchanged except for 5 extra large cruisers for the foreign fleet plus 1 extra large cruiser in material reserve, and 48 additional torpedo boats."[from wiki]
Here the lack of any special London interest in the leadup to the German parliament voting on the bill of 1906 is even more conspicious that the cause for London's "offers" is related the German Naval Acts, and that there is a direct connection between these (cause and effect).
But surely the dates are "purely coincidence" or could simply be "correlation", not causal (search for "correlation does not imply causation").
None whatsoever.
London considered itself the "balancer of powers", and had no intention of having her hands tied re. the way they intended to fight in any "next great war", whichever way it unfolded, whoever "started it", or whatever the causes and reasons for such war could be (no hindsight, since of course nobody knew there would be a war in 1914: but "policy" was "policy" regardless).
London had no intention of using the diplomatic means realistically at London's disposal to limit the risk of a war breaking out, by attempting to alleviate the tension between the three powers in question (Germany/France/Russia). It suited the London lords just fine that Germany was wedged in between GB's main historical imperialist rivals for territory and gain (Russia and France), and the lords had no intention of sacrificing the potential situation that all continental powers, engaged in a "total war", would end up "mutually exhausted", thereby strengthening the grip a little nation of 40 million people had on world affairs ("weight"). Of course, if everybody else ended up "totally exhausted" and "totally demoralized", one's own "power"/"leverage" would automatically rise respective to others.
Of course, for politicians who considered the presence of an opposing army in Belgium as a threat, as Casus Belli, or a "pistol pointing at the heart of London", the fact that Russian soldiers were less than 100 miles from Berlin, and of great worry (two-front war) to Berlin, is pure hypocrisy.
Even a simple neutrality accord or non-aggression pact between London and Berlin would have taken a great burden off Berlin's shoulders, since a war (any war threatening the balance of power) would have automatically included GB/Empire.
Berlin was confident of being able to repulse any French/Russian attack (two-front war), but with GB thrown into the deal as the self-proclaimed "balancer of powers", it would have to be a "short war" through Belgium (note: "in strategy" or "an explanation", not to be confused with "apologia" or "sympathy for invading armies" for which there is none on my part).
A pre-war neutrality agreement or non-aggresion pact between London and Berlin would have meant Berlin could return to the pre-1905 situation (no single contingency plan, aka the so-called "Schlieffen Plan" only, but rather multiple war plans adapted to expected circumstances as had existed prior to 1913), comfortable in mastering any potential Russian or French aggression should such aggression ever arise. Lastly, with any form of long-term mutually beneficial treaty/alliance/accord in place and ratified, Germany would also not have needed a bigger navy.
History is not set in stone, and any positive changes along the way would have effected events on the timeline.
1
-
When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think (§§footnote) today.
Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer of and over continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers.
These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology).
Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.
Has it ever occured to a viewer that if a policy or strategy "divided Europeans" with a "ruling" (Versailles Treaty), that it actually fits the definition of the the "divide and rule" technique?
The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group.
After WW2 the "Versailles attitude" of "dividing Europeans with "rulings" continued, with the Truman Doctrine.
Churchill of course, not in power anymore, announced the divide and rule strategy with his "Iron Curtain speech" a year before.
The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely.
§§ Think = As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the systems/strategies tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.
1
-
1
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They morphed strong monarchies ("princes") into weak democracies ("mercenaries"), then used entire regions as tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up to Versailles. The USA could afford to wait.
Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Meanwhile, after more than two years Boris Johnson has admitted that the war in the Ukraine is a proxy war for US/collective Western interests, and Vladimir Zelensky has stated that "there are those in the West who don't mind a long war [in Ukraine]" to extend Russia, using his peoples as tools for the gain of outsiders who drool over the profits (Mitch McConnell), or lust after the systemic expansion possible as result of great upheavals amongst human beings. Does this take the wind out of the sails of the "paid Putin puppet"-screamers, blindly chanting their MSM narratives against those who have said this from day 1? Not at all. In order to fit their world views, these tools will deny reality, rattle down the narrative to a point of making total fools of themselves. They would now have to believe that Boris Johnson, or Vladimir Zelensky are "paid Putin puppets", in order to square a circle...
This is exactly what is meant with fools arguing their way into the trenches their own leaders have deceived them into.
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into.
Eastern Europe.
Balkans.
Black Sea.
Caucasus region.
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control).
How old is this game called "marching empire"? Old, very old....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The entire system they favor in the West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often repeated nice-sounding storyline. The graphic depiction of Yin and Yang is not only valid about the "good vs bad" dichotomy (Taoism), but can also apply to the model of "UNITY/CONCORD" vs "DIVISION/DISCORD".
As the model of Yin and Yang states, there is always some good in the bad, and always some bad in the good, and equilibrium is hard to achieve since human nature tends to allow the pendulum to swing past the point of equilibrium, towards the other pole. Equally, every system based on division per default, always contains some elements of forces of unity. And, the other way around: systems based on the default setting that unity is the main principle, will always contain elements of division. When studying thousands of man-made systems, one reaches the conclusion that some are more "top down" UNITY with some lower tiered "freedoms" allowed in order to keep the peace, whilst others are more "bottom up freedoms" with restrictions applying. Both meet in the middle somewhere, and then try to constantly balance powers between the various factions. A "Republic" is already a "meet-in-the-middle" approach, since it divides power on multiple tiers.
What happened in Europe post-1900 can be juxtaposed onto China's recent relevant history of trying to break free from Western dominated imperialism. To anybody who knows a bit of Chinese history, it becomes clear that our Western narrative of "WW2" does NOT apply to China, since China was already in a more or less bloody war between outside imperialists and meddlers (dividers of Chinese unity using local proxies). During its Century of Humiliation, China was a classical case of "war/policy/division" by proxy. Proxies were employed, funded, armed, and financed to achieve the division of China during the Era of European Imperialism.
The dividers have it easy.
All they have to do to create regional/global division, is to continuously lie to foster dissent, covertly steal for inequality, always meddle using political favouritism, and eternally instigate violence, by either outright declaring war or simply allowing wars to happen (not stop these wars, aka "enabling war as eternal event).
The local political forces had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER during the 19th and 20th centuries. The local strategists used old strategies to try to re-introduce a fully sovereign China. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for Chinese interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside imperialist powers and their proxy rule and domination. During these roughly 100 years, the European imperialist powers were later joined by the USA and Japanese imperialist powers, and later Soviet and Western ideologies, all continuously using China as battleground. Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided Chinese systems, is of course a dumb strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. If weak, and while weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division. You don't fight fire with fire, but with water.
One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity.
Therefore when studying the "WW2" part of the Chinese Century of Humiliation (1839-1947), it becomes clear why the western proxy Chiang-Kai Shek was accused by his allies of "hoarding" his Lend-Lease, and not doing more to fight the Japanese. The local proxies in China during this battle of "post-WW1 China" as yet another link between WW1 and WW2, were already preparing for the war they KNEW would follow AFTER the Western narrative of "WW2" ended, and the West conveniently disposed of one of these outside proxies (Japan plus local collaborators). That WW1 and WW2 (1914 to 1945) had already resulted in a serious weakening of the European powers also, for the benefit of whoever was left in China (grand strategy) was also already clear. In our Western urge to name-brand wars, this post_WW2 phase is often referred to as "Chinese Civil War", whereas in reality it was simply ALWAYS an outside proxy war, carried out on the territory of China, which intended to DIVIDE China into interest zone (spheres of influence). This constant name branding affords the ability to hide the outside powers' divide-and-rule strategy of power.
WW1 and WW2 were one global struggle with multiple layers and which merely had a 20 year gap in between.
Do we live in eternal peace interspersed by wars, or do we live in eternal war, interspersed by peace?
In the eternal battle between unity/concord and division/discord, it is we who waste our time arguing.
Who is right or wrong?
Is it the "weak" who are right/wrong, or is it the "strong"?
Is it some the "the West" or is it some of "the rest"?
Is it the "democracies" or is it the "autocracies"?
Is it the "attacker" or the "defender"?
Is it the "blue team" waving their banner, or the "yellow team" chanting their slogans?
As they point fingers vigorously, arguing their "my ingroup" against "your ingroup"-dichotomies, here is one thing the opposites don't realize as they argue like children.
Who gains from division?
Who would gain from unity?
As the excited dissenters extend themselves, weaken themselves and end up totally exhausted with arguments, they don't realize they are all the victims of the biggest lie in history.
Who gains from eternal division?
Qui bono?
The finger pointers are at the receiving end of the biggest joke of history, for as long as they point the finger at someone else to try to pass the blame for their own previous actions, they stumble in broad daylight, and fall for the false prophets who deceive them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As long as Europeans see their European Civil War (1914-45 see footnote) as a battle between good and bad they will keep on losing.
The Chinese leadership figured out that their "Century of Humiliation" (1837-1947) needed to end, by FIRST kicking the outsiders and their "interest models" out.
As long as Europeans (collective concept) keep on thinking in terms of words rather than concepts they will remain tools of the higher power. As long as Europeans keep on thinking in terms of "good/bad", or "me/you" or "us/them" or "this language/that language!, or any other DIVISIONS, rather than "Europeans/outsiders" they will remain tools of outside "dividers".
Same counts for the Arabian Peninsula, and anywhere else on the planet.
Hegel — 'History teaches us that man learns nothing from history.'
Studying history only teaches you how man-made systems of power justify their own wrongdoing.
----
Footnote:
In Western narratives, from the Anglo-Saxon/Eurocentric world view, a war inside East Asia concerning a variety of ethnic, religious and linguistically related peoples is known as a "civil war", but for the same historians and storytellers a war in Europe between a variety of ethnic, religious, and linguistically related peoples is a "world war". This is the logic of the "world according to the West" (USA/collective West), telling the rest of the world that "our issue is your issue, but your issue is your issue" just like they have done these past 500 years, and it's "just how it is" and the "rules based order".
Well, it's not 1600, or 1700, or 1800, or 1900, or even the year 2000 anymore.
Arrogance of power is only arrogance of power, as long as one has the power.
Once the "power" is missing, one is stuck with one's arrogance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage.
Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating families. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Never a "price tag" for own actions...
Right?
WRONG
Brits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends".
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"...
And after the war ended?
They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946).
Did they ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not.
Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next. Hopped into extinction.
1
-
Gravediggers....of the British Impure...hoooorah...
Brits thought they were sooooo clever and make a "pig's breakfast" out of Europe, as they always did as a matter of policy.
"Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
James Hacker : That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister [rolls eyes and laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister.
No "satire" there at all.
Not "funny comedy" at all if one ends up as a "tool" of London's little divide and rule schemes.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists...
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States),.
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Ask the affected millions what they wanted for themselves? Nah. That was below the lords...
So in 1939 Stalin and Hitler came along and made "a pig's breakfast" of the London lord's little scheme for their "divided continent" (see Secret protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact).
The lords wanted to play divide and rule with the continent's inhabitants indefinitely, for own gain, and in the end the UK became a tool of Washington DC, and they lost their Empire. Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945 and a subsequent few years.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was reduced to the status of "a scrap of paper". Awww. Sad. No nukes for the "special relationship" best fwiends 😅😆😁
Subsequently Washington DC used British weakness and made a pig's breakfast out of British markets (economic warfare), and re-divided the world into "east and west".
Didn't anybody notice?
The world went from a divided continent, to suit the expansion/protection of the British Empire/London, to a divided world, to suit the expansionprotection of The American Century/Washington DC.
1
-
In the new setup, the new global balance of power which favored Washington DC, London was a useful tool. They'd fight the new "default enemy" (communism) without needing much prodding.
You see, the commies wanted to rule the world, and the new alpha needed useful tools.
Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, as a matter of policy, and able to do so because of a geographical advantage, London wanted to "rule the world" by creating a divided continent (divide and rule). In the end they themselves became a tool, because as time progressed and technology advanced, the geographical advantage passed to Washington DC.
They therefore became a tool of others, same as what they intended for their brothers across the English Channel.
Everything came a full circle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
ROTFL
Up to the year 1898, US political actions and wars can be summed up as being defensive in nature, to ensure own survival as a state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_realism
The USA was indeed in danger of becoming a playball of the "divide and rule"-strategies of European powers, mainly France, GB and Spain, who could create changing alliances to create political tensions (to a point of war) in North America, for their own selfish interests (often vested interests of the few).
The US strategy for Europe would change to "offensive realism"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_realism
...round about the time which it declared war on a European Empire (Spain) which was not directly capable of threatening her future, in other words a change from a defensive, to an offensive global stance beyond the Monroe Doctrine. This switch by Washington DC to expansive "offensive realism" was actually implemented slightly earlier, around the year 1895.
US citizens, as individuals (not "the state") have been the victims of this "offensive realism" ever since.
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
US Congressperson Dan Crenshaw (note his military background, therefore knowledge about strategies) recently stated re. the concept of "rather let them fight over there", after a 40 billion aid package to the Ukraine: “Yeah, because investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea. You should feel the same.” (in a "shame game" with Republicans via Twitter who voted against the aid package).
Yup.
A "gweat idea" to fund others "fighting over there, so we don't have to fight them over here", and earn some "donations" along the way. What's there not to like?
One might think that this is "annecdotal", but as Napoleon said only the coward won't tell you what he thinks in your face.
One might think whatever one wants about Dan Crenshaw, but at least he is honest.
If anybody ends up in a muddy trench, it's not his fault.
Of course, its never the fault of the "system" he's in called "world alpha" either, since it's a free world (see below, Wesphalian Principles), and if you're stupid enough to end up in the "muddy trench" fighting so that men like him (or in absence of evidence, his "buddies" in "the system") can rake in obscene profits in the rackets they will always vote against avoiding, it's not his issue. He'll be in church on Sundays, praying the loudest, and he'll be on twitter on Monday, making fun of those not smart enough.
I assume, he'll have his "flock" of supporters, irrelevant of what he utters.
1
-
Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar.
Washington DC s strategy is constant, using a geographical position of power.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equillibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equillibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to, and gaslighting the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequillibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Teapot69 PART II
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
-----------------------------------
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
§§§footnote
If you wish to know more about exactly how the British Empire was "being dismantled," then get back to me.
1
-
@Teapot69 President Jimmy Carter called the USA the "most violent nation in the history of the planet."
Do you know why?
Spend 15 or 20 minutes reading below, and then get back to me.
PART I
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), (§§§footnote) the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed." SOURCE: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive
US strategist in these think tanks lay out the scheme of what was going to be the new post-war reality, as a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" for the USA to control. Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under US supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.)
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." Note, all words in quotes were actual words used IN THIS OFFICIAL US DOCUMENT, and the thesis and its quoted sources can all be downloaded for free, from the www, and using these key words provided for your search engine.
---------------------------------
After around 1940, ... (quote) "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident (§§§footnote) – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. *Within this framework the role of France, Germany and ENGLAND of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations..."
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world."
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.", Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
Die Geschichte der Einkreisungpolitik eine Eurasischen Grossmacht wiederholte sich nach 1990.
Die Absicht der Hegemoniemacht besteht darin, die kleineren Systeme zu „verwandeln“, um sie zu Werkzeugen der Einkreisung (Stellvertreter) oder zu „unsinkbaren Flugzeugträgern“ für die eigene systemische Kontrolle oder Erweiterung zu machen.
Dann produzieren Sie die gesamte Geschichte auch noch als „Schutz der Freiheit/Freunde/Demokratie,“ als "Freiheitskampf," oder irgentwelche andere Story das auch in Hollywood noch gut wirkt (Strategie des "Bread and Circuses" für die heimische Massen).
Die später als 1. und 2. Weltkrieg bezeichneten Ereignisse waren Teil derselben Feuersbrunst, die um das Jahr 1900 begann, als die Seemächte ihre kontinentalen Nachbarn umzingelten.
Für das amerikanische Jahrhundert nach dem Jahr 1900 war Europa einfach ein etwas größerer Landstrich als Großbritannien für Rom um das Jahr „0“: Die von Washington D.C. verwendete Technik war dieselbe, nämlich die Nutzung bestehender Teilungen. Solche Spaltungen für eigene Zwecke auszunutzen, ist die Strategie „Teile und Herrsche“.
Ein proaktives Mittel, um eigene Interessen auf Kosten anderer voranzutreiben, besteht darin, einige zu bevorzugen (die Macht der Begünstigten zu erhöhen) auf Kosten anderer (die Macht der Geächteten zu verringern).
Für den „Spalter“ sind die Vielzahl der Gründe, Motivationen, Ideologien, Rechtfertigungen, Meinungen, Ausreden oder die Interessen derer, die mitwirken, um die nützliche Spaltung für die höhere Macht zu erreichen, nicht von Bedeutung. Für die spaltende Macht spielt es keine Rolle, wie die Spaltung umgesetzt wird, oder wie bestehende Spaltungen vertieft werden, oder wer aus welchen Gründen auch immer hilft, oder ob diejenigen, die die Spaltung begünstigen und begünstigen, überhaupt wissen, dass sie die Spaltung unterstützen: Was zählt, ist, dass es umgesetzt wird.
Für den Teiler ist es nicht wichtig, warum die Werkzeuge zusammenarbeiten, sondern die Tatsache, dass die ausgesuchte Werkzeuge zusammenarbeiten, um Spaltung zu schaffen und irgendwo einen Teil des Planeten zu überwältigen.
Wie und das sind unterschiedliche Prämissen ...
Das Imperium ist auf der Suche nach Gewinn sind nur „Interessen“ wichtig.
Der Flächenbrand, der sich nach 1914 abspielte, war ein weiterer europäischer 30-jähriger Krieg (mit einer 20-jährigen Pause dazwischen).
Die so eingerichteten Spaltungen waren:
1) die Seemächte (Großbritannien/USA) mit ihren kontinentalen Verbündete (wie beispielsweise Frankreich nach 1904 und Russland nach 1907).
gegen:
2) die kontinentalen Allianzen, die durch die Seeherrschaft von 1) eingekreist und daran gehindert wurden, ausreichende Einflussbereiche für ihr Wachstum zu erreichen, und diese Einkreisungsstrategie begann als vorsätzliche Aktion der Seemächte um 1900.
Diese Strategie wurde nach 1990 einfach wiederholt (Wolfowitz-Doktrin/US-imperialistischer Machtanspruch mit „US-Primärität“ als oberste Priorität. Niedergeschrieben, für alle sichtbar.). Nur wurden diesmal die „neuen Rivalen“ weiter nach Osten verlagert. Die „neuen Rivalen“ heißen nun Russland und China.
"Kanonenfutter-Stürme!!"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Don't become puppets.
Lots of "appeal to emotion" in the comments section.
Fact: By own admission, and known to all, the USA misuses NATO as a tool to ensure its global hegemony.
For that it needs "Euroweanies" that it can manipulate.
Just enough emotionally steered "Euroweanies" who are easily manipulated in a giant "divide and rule"-game, which uses a variety of emotionally-laden topics to incite outrage, tear open old wounds (history), and/or use negative human emotions like greed or the fear of losing out, etc. to stir up trouble.
"Trouble" can then be swum in, like a fish in water.
As soon as there is some signs of more unity, the various well-funded "think tanks" and "lobby groups" (aka "strategic studies"...ahem..."centers") remind the people how "evil" the "others" still are, what they did a hundred years ago, how they "wanted to kill your grand-dadda", whatever...
Beware of the dividers.
Age-old advice: "When a man is prey to his emotions, he is not his own master" (Benedict de Spinoza).
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]"
Or as the old "insider joke" goes: NATO's "function" is "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out."
Nobody needs "friends" like that.
When "mutual defence" becomes a secondary function, and is rated below "big power ambitions", it is time to think the unthinkable.
GB is no longer part of the "Three Musketeers" of Europe, so now it is up to France and Germany to get together and chuck the USA out, and create an own strong United States of Europe. My suggestion: Seperate economic issues completely (EU as a "pure" unemotional economic union), and then to start bundling political issues under a new umbrella called "The United States of Europe" to take the emotional flak off the EU.
The "EU" should only deal with economic issues, not political ones. All social and local issues should only be an internal concern of the nations and states, not outside meddlers. Political issues are a perfect target for outside "dividers", with their "divide and rule"-agendas.
Mr Spinoza again, speaking from the grave: "Reason cannot defeat emotion; an emotion can only be displaced or overcome by a stronger emotion."
Will this ever happen?
Probably at some point. But not soon.
No matter how many truly good people there are, with truly good intentions, it is easier to divide people based on what makes them different, than to unite them based on what they have in common.
1
-
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mr Dyntasy In respect to the topic at hand?
Easy.
"Male and female" fall under the category "sex", of which there are 2.
"Gender" is a role model in society, played (or chosen not to) by the 2 sexes.
Concerning "gender": an individual with individual rights ("freedom, liberty, self-determination, pursuit of happiness" and all that) can either chose to conform to the pressure of peers or society, or go the own way.
Just to remind that just 100 years ago the gender role model of women was basically "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen".
Peers and society would have frowned upon and criticized women who wore trousers, or sidestraddled a horse, because that was not the "gender specific" clothing or behaviour at the time.
In case you are a woman, are you happy that rebels back then went against these norms of society, and fought for the right to chose own "freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DrStrangelove-w9w Seeing how most of the comments are slogans and appeals to emotion, I'll just jump into the fray.
For hundreds of years, the British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations around the world. Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images").
Looks a lot like Coventry, doesn't it?
Kagoshima, Copenhagen, Canton, Sebastopol (Krim War), and and dozens of others.
Such fun to have propaganda ministers coining the term "Copenhagenization" to mock the children they burnt alive...
From wiki, regarding the practice: "...the Political Register: 'Oh, that example of Copenhagen has worked wonders in the world!...I (would) like to see the name of that city become a verb ... 'cities will be copenhagenized' is an excellent phrase. It's very true, that Sir John Warren would copenhagenize New York with very little trouble..."
Excellent indeed...
When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets" and bomb(ard) countries without declaring war. The locals defending their own? Mowing down natives armed with spears, with machine guns? Pfffft. Nobody cared...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps (called "penal colonies"), and terror bombing innocents called Air Policing...
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s killed their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
All of a sudden, they were sooooo tired of all that "Empire"-stuff...
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
1
-
@adrianvalentin69 There is no need to feel sorry for anybody.
As Tolkien said, "they were all of them deceived...
"The policy which Britain has been pursuing for the last two centuries has brought her prosperity and greatness. After each victory, Britain seems, on the surface to have gained for herself no advantage whatever; all she did, she claimed to be an act of international chivalry and justice but a deeper analysis of British statesmen's claims reveals that they never speak the truth. Britain's key policy is to attack the strongest country with the help of weaker countries and then to join the weakened enemy in checking the growth of other countries and so on, and so on. British foreign policy has remained basically unchanged for two centuries. When Britain befriends or colonizes another country, the purpose is not to maintain a cordial friendship for the sake of friendship but to utilize that country as a tool to fight all threats to her supremacy. Therefore Britain always remains in a commanding position by making other countries fight her wars while she herself reaps the fruits of victory." Taken from The Vital Problem of China by Sun Yat-Sen, 1917
Your "dear lords" misused "little nations" for far too long, and got away with it for far too long.
Because of being an island nation (geography), you got away with it far too long.
But here's what your "dear lords" didn't notice: The geograpical advantage they enjoyed for 200 years passed over to the USA around 1900.
But they didn't adapt their strategies, so they died.
They played the same old "game" as they did for 200 years, and in 1945 The American Century said: GAME OVER
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, the one with all the oil profits, is a real treasure. Overseen by the people, FOR the people.
From Wiki:
"The Government Pension Fund of Norway comprises two entirely separate sovereign wealth funds owned by the government of Norway.
The Government Pension Fund Global, also known as the Oil Fund, was established in 1990 to invest the surplus revenues of the Norwegian petroleum sector. It has over US$1 trillion in assets, including 1.3% of global stocks and shares, making it the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund.[1] In May 2018 it was worth about $195,000 per Norwegian citizen.[2] It also holds portfolios of real estate and fixed-income investments. Many companies are excluded by the fund on ethical grounds.
The Government Pension Fund Norway is smaller and was established in 1967 as a type of national insurance fund. It is managed separately from the Oil Fund and is limited to domestic and Scandinavian investments and is therefore a key stock holder in many large Norwegian companies, predominantly via the Oslo Stock Exchange."
GO NORWAY
Socialize the profits.
Apparently Norwegians think that everything that is a part of Norway, belongs to all Norwegians.
What primitive backwards people. Never amount to anything (heavy on the sarcasm)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bulletsbbq2576 "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
David Ben-Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
“Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. … Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice.”
— David Ben Gurion. Quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan’s “Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One for all No, I didn't say it was "unsuitable for kids".
I said it was unsuitable for smaller kids to watch, in the same way that the Bible is unsuitable for younger kids to read, without the guidance of adults [please read my post again].
In the same way there are simplified children's Bibles, PragerU could make a simplified version of their 10 Commandments video for YouTube Kids [Note, there is a kids channel on YouTube].
Instead of being whiny about "oppression", they should rather look at the other sides argument, and adapt their videos (for example, not including forbidden Nazi symbols like Swastikas in their video....google it, because it is forbidden to show this in Germany. YouTube is international and not only for the US. TouTube must consider international regulations, or get banned themselves. Why should they risk this? )
If they really wanted to be available unrestricted (in libraries), they could make a kid's version of each video at a fraction of the price of dumb lawsuits
But here's what people under the mistaken perception of being "persecuted" and therefore constantly preaching about being oppressed don't get....take the most logical way out, and go forward.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's start at the beginning.
With grand strategy.
A truism of grand strategy and at the beginning of every analysis should be the various intentions of the powers, and how they aimed to achieve their goals.
After WW1, the two remaining European Empires set up the foundation for the protection of their Empires in Europe (Versailles, St Germaine, etc.)
Empires with vast resources and therefore the strategic advantage aim to fight "long wars", slowly drawing in their superior resources, whilst expanding the war to the periphery, away from their own homelands.
GB and France were looking for "soft overbellies" (😊) to deflect the war away from their own homelands.
Those in an inferior strategic position, with limited resources, aim for "short wars" (or a series of "limited wars") building up to the final goal.
For Germany, the final goal was the SU (the resources in the Heartland/ Mackinder "Pivot of History"/Heartland Theory)
Germany had no interest in invading Norway. A neutral Scandinavia gave it everything it needed, and the last thing they wanted was to be forced to disperse resources away from their main objective.
There is your filter.
Against that (grand strategies), all theories must be tested.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anthonyvigil7567 Just read the wiki article about the war in the Pacific, and consider the impact of "forces freed".
The millions of Chinese, British, Australians, Kiwis, Dutch, Indians, Soviets, plus resistance fighters from dozens of nations, etc. saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, simply by being there , and drawing off the Japanese forces.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thegodlyjohnson The objective of gun free zones is not "to stop bad guys".
Like the Gilroy shooting proved, a "gun free zone" works in the way that it allows the "good guys with guns" to zero in on the bad guys and take them out without the resulting chaos of FIRST having to figure out who the "good guys" are.
You are using a strawman argument.
Like during the days of the Wild West, the frontier towns were gun free zones, and everybody who broke that rule was immediately on the wrong side of the law, and easily ID'ed and zeroed in onto.
In anything, advocate a system of deputies.
These deputies would FIRST prove that they are adept, then receive a badge of ID, and THEN, and only THEN, would they be KNOWN as "good guys" (tonarriving cops) and identifiable as "good guys" by the general public.
Without a badge of authority, anybody can just arrive on the scene, proclaiming to be a "good guy".
That's logical, correct?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ahhh...the "family ties". Yes, unfortunately "family ties" could not patch things up in divided Europe, in a changing world.
Of course one could argue that there wasn't any "European unity" to "divide" at the time (around 1900), but that isn't the only purpose of "divide and rule". Divide and rule also seeks preventive action, to avoid unity if such a threat is spotted on the horizon...
Also, there was no "1900 alpha" with a "Truman Doctrine"-style tool to create unity (under which it had the sole "ultimate weapon") by
creating a common rival/enemy either...
Only "a Wilhelm" trying to unite European powers behind a common cause...
Unfortunately in the study of history we only have two options: Simply believe what others tell us, or do own research.
Please download and read "Germany and the Spanish-American War" from JSTOR (free pdf).
The US plans to overpower Spain and take their colonies started in 1897.
So did Berlin's contigency plans for the USA (low-key at first, later adapted as the Spanish-American War progressed).
Yet what remains today as "important history"?
The historian explains (its only 12 pages from a longer book) how uniting Europe behind a common cause ("defending own European interests by uniting and siding with Spain") was Wilhelm's real goal.
The "German planned attack on America" today being widely spread as the assumed sign of "Wilhelm's evil" and "desire to rule the world", is an ancillary detail of course. Yes, a highly emotionally charged one (google "appeal to emotion") and can therefore serve as a sort of "clickbait" in history to distract from the more tedious and boring books explaining what really happened.
The Spanish-American War was the last opportunity to unite Europe behind a common cause.
Too bad the alpha at the time was ruled by a gambler and womanizer (Edward) and otherwise engaged (Second Boer War). Too busy to come up with a "turn of the century (1900)"-version of the Truman Doctrine herself.
According to that history, in 1897/1898 Wilhelm did not want to act alone, but preferred to try and find common concensus "along family lines" first, but failed because European capitals were more about "me first", in a rapidly changing world.
Subsequently Europe made it easy for Washington DC to start playing their "divide and rule". Paris was the first to try and snuggle up to a disinterested Washington DC, followed by London...
And today?
The post-WW2 Truman Doctrine and the "united Europe" it helped to forge (at least in the west after WW2), no longer serves its intended purpose.
Time to "divide and rule" again...
1
-
Why is anybody surprised that an empire keeps on voting for an imperialist?
"If the USA gets a cold, the rest of the world gets the flu".
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Honestly, what more is there to say? USA: "If I get a cold, the rest of the world is going to suffer worse." This must be the most pathetic acknowledgement of subjection I've read my entire life. If your global neighbor gets an economic "cold" and you can't simply send them a get-well-soon-card and continue with your own life unaffected, you are already in an internationalist/globalist entanglement.
"When the USA votes, the rest of the world looks on in awe and anticipation".
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Honestly, what more is there to say? USA: "If Americans vote an imperialist into office, the rest of the world is going to have to deal with it." This must be the most pathetic acknowledgement of subjection I've read my entire life. If your global neighbor votes in an imperialist and a convicted slimeball into office, and you can't simply send them an "oh what a pity"-look on your face and continue with your own life unaffected, your safety assured because there is a GLOBAL BALANCE OF POWER, you are already in a globalist entanglement.
It was not difficult to predict, that an imperialist system in which the sane half of its population has little power to change anything, will vote another establishment billionaire slimeball into power...
-----------------------------------------
One of the most common counter-arguments to criticism of the American "forever wars" these past hundred years, is that "The USA isn't an empire, because it never sought territorial gain."
True, but one doesn't have to change any borders if one has already reached the top of the mountain, looking down at the minor powers one will play divide-and-rule with.
During the Era of European Imperialism, and carrying on seamlessly for the past 100 years or so, the world has been global Apartheid with a two-tier "us/them" system of everything: from concepts such as "wealth" to "justice" and "control", and with "gardens for a few" and "jungles" for the rest around the perimeter, and any deep changes can be vetoed by those who hold the true power. With the silent consent of the USA/collective West during the First Cold War (1947-1990), the REGIONAL HEGEMONY in South Africa was allowed to play their divide-and-rule games (aka "Apartheid") in a region of their world which was Southern Africa constituted as being South Africa, Rhodesia, Namibia (own sphere of direct/indirect influence) and the outer regions of Botswana, Zambia, or Mozambique, and that the borders need never change in order to play the "games" of divide-and-control/rule. It was CONTROL of their own borders, and control OVER the neighbors, which they sought. Notice that the borders never changed, but Apartheid/divide-and-rule flourished anyway. According to the same "logic" it should be fairly easy to brush away any criticism of the actions of the Apartheid state South Africa and its "forever wars" during the Apartheid era, with a flippant "The RSA never sought territorial gain." All historical European global empires, incl. the British Empire, were of course "Apartheid empires" since they had two/three tier systems as default settings and they had different sets of "rules" for "me and for thee" as rules-based ordering others around, and considered this state of affairs perfectly OK. Of course, imposing such "rules", paid off handsomely in the upkeep of the "gardens". They practice divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, from their "gardens", as "my rules trump your rules", just like South African systems of power did in Southern Africa, not only inside the own borders, but beyond.
Apart = separate = divide.
Divde the "jungles", to keep the "gardens with pools" nice and luxurious...
Divide-and-control/rule.
A globally operating HEGEMONY can likewise play the same divide-and-control/rule games everywhere on the globe and that the borders need never change in order to play the "games". The previous HEGEMONS had the clout to practice divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, just like Washington DC systems of power did in the USA, not only inside the own borders, but beyond.
To play games, the borders need never change. All it needs is POWER, a set of rules for ordering everybody else around, and a position of impunity from any setbacks. The attitude is then that somebody else can pick up the tab. Today, our easily-deceived Western leaders in the self proclaimed "good West" (not strategists) tell us that there will be peace, as long as everybody adheres to the belief system that "the borders may never change". Everybody who changes the established borders is "evil" (unless of course, it is the own capital cities, or their proxies doing so: then it is "justified" by finger-pointing somewhere else). The own two-tier "us/them" system says so, so it must be "true."
1
-
1
-
@joshuamarx8209 If you wish to contribute a small part to remove the influencers and propagandists called Hasbarah, there is something you can do, which is extremely easy.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers like juanzulu here in this thread, who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, wah "what genercide," or your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even in hindsight, it was not a mistake.
Unfortunately, the way the world had been set up post-WW1, there was no alternative to appeasing Hitler.
And even those relying on "Churchill" (aka "the hardliner") for their alternative istory, must admit reality.
If in power, Churchill would have done the same as Chamberlain, because (reality) the British Prime Minister doesn't have the authority to declare war out of the blue, and that would have depended on how the ministers would have debated it out...
The second "reality" was that in 1938, the Legion Condor was in Spain, next to Gibraltar (15,000 well-trained and combat ready soldiers with tanks and air support). Also, an Italian dictator keen on "Mare Nostrum" and a Spain which would have liked Gibraltar back....hmmm....
Churchill of course, was a naval strategist.
1) Would Churchill (a navy guy) have risked losing Gibraltar to "protect little nations"?
2) What would the lords in London have thought about "protecting little nations"?
3) And even if they did value "little nations" enough to declare war on their behalf, what would have been the first military/strategic priority had it come to war in 1938?
Especially the last one being not a difficult question to answer...
1
-
1
-
Socialism is, in a nutshell "the means of production and distribution of goods under the control of the state", and often means wide scale control of the economy by the people.
Populism is, also in a nutshell "handing out of goodies (social programmes) in return for populist support.
Both are present in many forms, and in many political and economic models.
Examples of populism? Currently, for example Poland (handing out state revenues as "baby money" to increase birth rates), or the US (Trump is using state revenues, i.e. trade tariffs to aid struggling farmers).
Such "freebies" and "goodies" in return for support of populist leaders is common. It led to the downfall of Greece, after cheap EU loans stayed out after the financial crisis of 2009.
It also led to the downfall of Venezuala, because the state could not keep up with the promises it had made to supporters, once the price of oil dropped.
I suggest doing your research elsewhere, and not on the channel of a conservative think tank, skewing and indoctrinating the uninformed into chanting "VENEZUELA" and "SOCIALISM" .
They are using misdirection and spinning information for political purposes.
China is a Marxist Socialist state. I dare say, economically very successful. Mike drop...
1
-
THE GEOPOSITIONAL ADVANTAGE OF POWER vs. MACHIAVELLI
The GEOPOSITIONAL advantage.
Explaining the concept of "an advantage" is simple.
Only those who deny reality will never understand, or pretend not to understand, making them liars (by omitting).
The "mommy's basement hero" or similar "keyboard warrior" is the archetype of an individual arguing from a GEOPOSIONAL advantage. The own "standpoint" can be richly, proudly, hectoringly, carnivorously (loosely quoting Jefferson) defended from a unique position of being unaffected by the potential EFFECTS of the own standpoint being vociferously voiced and proclaimed. In other words, as many proverbial expressions state the advocate will never face, or expect never to face, any consequences of the own vociferously claimed "truth". In fact, the repeatedly proclaimed "truths" only means arguing others into a standoff or conflict. The intention of the latter is to then quickly run off into the own safety zone, and from there (eating popcorn) "watch others fight".
The worst type of leadership one can imagine: The coward. The liar. The weak mind.
A simple question exposes them: Why aren't you there, in the "trenches," defending your OWN standpoint?
Then listen/read carefully. This species is evolutionary wired not only to become susceptible to manipulation, deception, lies and half-truths, but also to become the creators of manipulation, deception, lies and half-truths.
The worst type of leadership one can imagine: The coward. The liar. The weak mind.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background.
Step 1: Deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is "down" and "out", start again with point 1)
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
MACHIAVELLIAN PRINCIPLE OF FAIRNESS
Of course, this argument cannot be turned around, since the principled standpoint, as opposed to the unprincipled standpoint of the "basement hero", is NOT to get into such positions in the first place. The standoffs as advocated BY these "basement heroes", are the escalation patterns which are recurrent throughout history. One sure-fire way to avoid conflict, is one of the oldest wisdoms/strategies of all: to do onto others, as one wishes to be done onto (not ONLY a moral standpoint, but ALSO a strategy of power to avoid escalation).
Of course, per Machiavelli, it is not only a wisdom, but also a strategy of power. The often quoted by imperialists/militarists with agendas as "It is better to be feared than loved" which is however a distortion version of the Machiavellian strategy.
The same way they lie and distort everything, in order to bend it to their own world views.
Unfortunately, even Machiavelli's writing have become distorted into meaning "It's cool to be an a-hole and brag about it."
What Machiavelli actually advised in Chapter XVII was that it is best to be both loved and feared (compromise and deterrence, by being fair, see FOOTNOTE). Only when that ideal of "to be loved" is not possible, then to make others "fear" is the way forward. As always, the distorters, the deceivers, the liars (by omitting half the strategy) will always pretend to expose "truths," whereas what they are doing is actually distorting it.
That is why the world needs a global, multi-tiered, legally-based balance of power.
FOOTNOTE
Per Machiavelli: Strategy of "fairness".
Do you wish to be encircled, and be encroached upon, and be controlled from outside? Then don't do it to others. Because "fair" is (per Machiavelli) ALSO a strategy of power, and such principles as "putting yourself in the shoes" or "walking a mile in their shoes" are ways to determine a fair principle. The unprincipled have no principles, therefore avoid wasting time on them. Balance them out...
1
-
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles (see my comment 4 weeks ago).
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS.
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Once there is an inpact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, and big business, and Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yup.
Details matter.
What happens if you are an a-hole?
Correct answer: At some point a bigger a-hole will come along and screw you over.
Brits thought they were sooooo clever...
"Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
James Hacker : That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister.
[laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister.
No "satire" there at all.
That is how they "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
Right though to today, the lords are laughing at your apologia for their failure...
They wanted to play divide and rule with the continental powers, and in the end became a tool of Washington DC, and lost the Empire.
Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was a scrap of paper.
Awww.
No nukes for "best fwiends" 😅😆😁
Subsequently Washington DC made a pig's breakfast out of British markets.
But...lemme guess: That was London's plan all along, right? 😆😅
To lose Empire was all part of the "great divide and rule scheme", right?
1
-
@marvinc9994 Excellent essay. Agreed on all points except one.
"Empires" can survive, but they must morph over time, and adapt according to Darwinism. Of course most people know the "survival of the fittest"-rule of thumb as being "Darwinism", but that is only half the story. The other half is "adapt or die".
Adapt to circumstances = survive
Refuse to adapt = die
The big picture (and geopolitics):
The core issue being that one cannot change others, but only the own attitude.
Of course, it wasn't only the external pressures by rivals on "Empire" from the outside.
Reality? Empires can last forever.
They just have to morph over time, and adapt to the world as the world changes.
Not have leaders who wish to change the world, to adapt to their "empire".
Its all a question of leadership.
The world changed, London refused to adapt.
Same counts for all the other empires.
They failed to adapt, so they died.
As simple as that.
Of course, there was a relatively easy "recipe for success" to ensure the future of the British Empire (standpoint: turn of the century, around 1900).
There were 2 fundamental pressures on Empire, as indeed on every empire, at any point in time.
1) Internal pressures (for example, rising worldwide nationalism, rising liberalism, etc.)
2) External pressures (competing empires, rivals, etc.)
I'm from South Africa, so I can draw parallels: The same Apartheid which led to the failure of South Africa in the 1970s/1980s is the same "apartheid" which led to the end of the British Empire re. point 1).
Of course, in both cases (internal and external pressures) the gentlemen in control in the British Empire and the RSA were too slow to pull the helm around, and change the disastrous course they were on.
Re. The British Empire.
1) Make timely internal changes:
In a nutshell, more "freedom, liberty, and self-determination" for all the subjects of the British Empire, thereby turning it into a "Pound block of equals" of sorts.
2) dump the disaster created by their own Policy of Balance of Power:
That pitted GB/Empire against the strongest continental power/alliance/country as a default setting.
It was a few "London lords" who once led the way, stiff-upper-lipping their way over the proverbial "lemming cliff", because of pride and arrogance (leading to an unwillingness to change), thereby leading to the situations which caused "Empire" to fade away in less than a lifetime.
From the unmistakable nr.1 at the turn of the century (around 1900), down to "merely on par" with the "new best fwiends" the USA, down to "third fiddle" in the Cold War...
All aided along by The American Century, using the same political/financial/policy "tools".
That was possible, because after 1900 geography slowly began giving Washington DC the leverage/advantage that London once had when London had the geographical advantage (during the 19th and early-20th century) vs. the continental powers...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
This is nothing new. For 100 years, settler colonists (Irgun, Lehi, Palmach, etc.) cooperating with the hegemon, carried out such practices of harassment, trying to coerce the original inhabitants to flee so they could occupy the land.
A hundred years ago the British Empire dispatched psychos like Orde Wingate (Special Night Squads) who took pleasure in random shootings, or waterboarding opposition to the British Empire in oil, sending the tortured back to their villages to report about the actions of their oppressors.
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined.
Don't delay.
Start today.
1
-
1
-
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
1
-
1
-
ideology
Source: Dictionary
noun
1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of democracy"
Similar: beliefs, ideas, ideals
This "box" called "TV" billions bow down to, has got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives in sinecure comfort...
Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders who appear to them in these "boxes". The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should sent "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) to kill for, is democracy in colusion with corporatism, and the slogan they chant is "Make the world safe for democracy".
Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders constantly lie and call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One ideal, must be wrong.
When one criticizes an ideologue's ideology, they expose their true nature. States are amoral, meaning neither "moral" nor "immoral." Individuals are "moral" or "immoral" but sadly, in large ingroups, the groupthink becomes self-centred, based on own interests. The "gardens" (Borrell) who think they the deserve the gardens, and therefore all other groups become "jungles" in their collective mind, to be kept down in power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Tyiion Thank you for your comment. Yes, please carry on with each and every form of activism which can potentially bring about positive changes. These will always compliment each other. Unfortunately all these things take time, and energy, which most individuals simply don't have. The intention of the OP is to show how easy it is to finally "do" something by "subtraction," rather than by "addition." (in case you're not sure what I mean with that, please respond and I'll elaborate 👍)
I've studied history in detail for more than 30 years, and breaking apart the links of power is the only way. Everything else has been tried and has failed, because the top tiers of power/rule/domination are the arbiters of the "divide and rule"-strategy. They use their influence to create and "sow dissent," and keep us, the masses, divided. Whether it is the intentional effect of a predetermined strategy, or unintentional results of trying to do good going wrong, the strategy has worked ever since the dawn of modern civilisations...
Cheers and keep up the good work 💪
1
-
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."
And if you lie, steal, and kill for division, then that is what you are fighting for.
"We lied. We cheated. We stole" - Mike Pompeo
And, may I add, they are and always were, above all PROUD of all their lies, loot, and deceit.
America's "global friends" (incl. the unceded Chinese province of "Taiwan") are burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including all semites in the MENA region) against each other. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) for the template.
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even worse.
Only a fool would indiscriminately kill potential allies (Christians trapped in a dictatorial state), in order to save people who would stick a knife in their back as a matter of ideology the minute they got the chance to do so (Communists).
Sun Tzu said: "In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to capture an entire army, a regiment or company rather than to destroy it."
Allied leaders: leTs toTally deStroy the baLance of powEr and thEn hope thAt commIes are honeSt anD decEnt
The Western Allies "sowed" death and "reaped" 50 years of Cold War, which (as we know today) almost lead to the end of mankind on half a dozen occasions (MAD). Of course, if it hadn't been for the divide and rule policies of the previous alpha in the world (London), there need never have been "Nazis" and "commies" to fight in the first place...
In 1941, a smart leadership would have let the nazis and commies "slug it out" to mutual destruction, seeing how they were sworn enemies.
Recipe for success?
Only support the losing side as much so they don't collapse, but not enough to win outright.
And to all those, "...but my dadda fought for the right side"-comments: Do you know who enabled WW2, because he wanted your grandparents/parents to die?
Stalin.
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
Roosevelt and Stalin: leTs saVe thE cOmmieS so wE caN fIght tHem in 5 yEars...
No wonder the cute "Uncle Joe" Stalin was always smiling.
He couldn't have found a bigger bunch of fools if searched for them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Lars So Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Churchill lost the British Empire.
It was far more than just a tragedy.
It was a geopolitical/grand strategy disaster.
They got a suitable answer from The American Century aka Washington DC after WW2.
The story of how the Brits lost their Empire...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying a power or alienating it was neither wise, nor in GB's best interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
After WW2, London had no leverage to further enforce or secure agreements, and down went the British Empire.
1
-
The powerful have used the strategy of divide-and-rule for thousands of years to drive a wedge between peoples.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe noted back then: "Divide and rule, calls the politician; unite and lead, is the slogan of the wise."
Some politicians and rulers may do this innocently and without thinking, but most know exactly what they are doing with their divisive tongues and their line-drawing divisions. It is their most successful technique that allows them to rule over us by preventing greater unity among people. This allows them to skim off enormous wealth from the gross national product that actually belongs to all people. If it is important to you, forward this message to others. Unite with those you are ordered to hate, according to Goethe because this is the counter strategy of "the wise". We should not allow them to continue winning in the same way for the next thousand years.
Divide-and-rule.
Draw lines, then set the people up against each other.
If there is a problem, blame somebody else.
That is the historical Albion's way.
Incredible how many can be deceived for so long.
In the age of European imperialism before 1945 it was mainly the British- and French Empires which kept global conflicts alive by drawing lines in favor of one group over the other. Previously it had been the "fading" empires or the "sick men" of Europe, like Portugal, Spain, or the Ottoman Empire. Later they were joined by others, in a long list: the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Russia (only bordering regions), Belgium, Italy, the USA, etc. The lines were often randomly drawn through tribes, through religious- or ethnic groups, to favor either the one, then the other. This created volatile hot spots of ethnic conflicts to use as pretext for intervention and occupation as the moral "rule maker". After 1945 the USA simply took over as global hegemony, but practising the same strategy of rule and domination as all the others before: divide-and-rule.
------------------------------------------------------
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
SETTLER COLONIALISM
The last 500 years of European/white settler colonialism as a subsection of the divide-and-rule technique. The strategy was "farms/forts" of the stronger power and using "might is right" as guiding principle to a systemic, slow advance into the lands of ingenious peoples all over the world. Same happened in North America, Australia, New Zealand, the Levant, South America, Southern Africa, etc.
Broken promises, broken treaties, looking for excuses to make the next 'step' (ratchet principle). The only places the strategy of slow ponderous expansion failed was where the local systems were too numerous or organized (East Asia). The "template" might have various regional differences, but the end effect is always the same. Slow, step-by-step advance of the own ideology, economic systems, corporations and political power.
1
-
1
-
Adam who?
About "blowback", "reap what you sow", "chickens coming home to roost", and all that...
"Since World War II, during a supposed golden age of peace, the United States military has killed or helped kill some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 84 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. The United States is responsible for the deaths of 5 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and over 1 million just since 2003 in Iraq.
Since 2001, the United States has been systematically destroying a region of the globe, bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, not to mention the Philippines. The United States has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces in three-quarters of them."
I bet there are millions of people around the world who simply don't give a sh*t....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "two state solution" narrative has always been a delaying tactic.
Back in the 1990s Tel Aviv was sneakily trying to introduce Apartheid, at the same time South Africa was busy ending it under international pressure. Of course, Israel was (according to imperialist logic) "doing nothing wrong"...
At the time the world was applauding South Africa as it ended Apartheid, and simultaneously the world was applauding Israel's attempt at introducing Apartheid, branding it as just "trying to create peace."
Note, whilst singling out the Palestinians/Arafat as being "unreasonable" and "rejecting the Israeli olive leaf of peace...blah, blah..." as the accepted narrative of the Mainstream Media.
Israel never intended for Palestinians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, "We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [edit: the historical examples being the "Apartheid dependencies," of the "Bantustan"] ... and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines ... The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term ... Jerusalem (would be) united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty ... will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev. We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth."
All the questionable clauses, eluding reality by use of the typical vague political doublespeak, have been highlighted.
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control. What that would have meant, we see today. Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city. Notice how Rabin, commonly held as a dove in politics, never used the term "full sovereign state" when he referred to this "Palestine", but the term "less than a state." Did you spot the use of [Israel's] "natural growth"? Critical question... Where to? Where would Israelis/Zionists "naturally grow" to, if there were equal neighbors, as a balanced power, which could actually stop any such Zionist settler "growth". The Jordan Valley, extends BOTH sides of the Jordan River. Now, I'm sure that was just another slip-up too, of people who don't understand simple geography. Whatever. It is fairly clear what they wanted, and there are historical examples for this: the "pool of cheap labor" within the own borders, as the concept of the "Bantustan" was for the RSA, given a little bit of "independence" to manage own affairs, but de facto/de jure powerless to stop the CONTROLLING power, intended to be Jerusalem, as Jweish capital city with the right to introduce permit laws, etc. It is literally what RSA did with their "Bantustans". Back then the people could not be fooled. They saw through the deceit, and rightfully called it out for what it was: just another Apartheid ploy to avoid the rise of political equals.
Sad reality? Today masses of fools are being mislead into praising Israel's attempted implementation of Apartheid as an attempt at peace, while at the same time denouncing a similar scheme actually implemented by the RSA in stages after WW2, as being bigoted/racist.
1
-
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can deny that it exists, because just like gravity, it cannot be seen.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like gravity, one can ignore that it exists, yet benefit from it at the same time.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like gravity exposes its own existence, by simple observation, anyone can observe the existence of divide and rule...
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like giant vacuum cleaners, it creates multiple systems on multiple levels, each with its own benefactors, and sucks of the hard labor from a base, and funnels it to the top.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that 99% of the participants who are involved, are blissfully unaware how they are actors in a game and can claim innocence while defending the systems at the same time.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can mask it behind innocuous policies, like meritocracy, and still claim to be doing the best politics possible.
The same way one can plausibly explain how one is a state of isolationism, yet be peculiarly in a state of constant interventionalism and war at the same time: invisible magic...***
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can plausibly deny its existance, yet constantly profit from it.
The cool thing about divide and rule, is that at the very top, the systems of empire, it creates a giant vacuum cleaner that funnels power to the top. "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. Within this framework the role of France, Germany and England of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations. . ."
The fruits of hard consistent invisible labor.
Divide and rule.
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world." Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire. - Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
The fruits of hard consistent unseen effects.
Divide and rule.
***With regards to Interventionalism: the USA was supposed to be Isolationist: John Quincy Adams delivered a speech in 1821 stating the USA's founding foreign policy of non-intervention and the US government's premise not to get entangled in or meddle in the affairs of another state. Adams issued the dire warning: Should America ever abandon her founding principle of non-interventionism, she would become "the dictatress of the world."
Just like Eisenhower issued a dire warning about Military Industrial Complexes, everybody knows how effective such warnings are.
The two-tier approach: get some people to say one thing, while others do the opposite...
Divide and rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Around 1900...
Alongside other measures, the Treaty of Versailles was a "divide and rule"-strategy, by outside powers, intent on gaining power by dividing Europeans. This simple statement or theory, can be validated by simply investigating the events around the turn of the previous century, and cutting out the distortions created by "dissention" (note: "sowing dissention" in systems, is a means used in the "divide an rule"-technique).
There is a saying stating that if one cannot explain something in a few minutes, that it is probably false:
At Versailles, Europeans were "divided" with a "ruling".
The divide and rule strategy of and over Europeans, can be explained in three seconds...
Of course, no superficially observed series of events can be concluded to be "a non-falsifiable theory" (Carl Popper), if there is not a substantial amount of evidence to corroborate it, and if the reader wishes, the comments section under the "His--tory Ro..om " educational channel on "Wilhelm II" (documentary), has more than 100 essays going back more than 4 years, to provide more than ample evidence for the theory of how Europeans 1) were once "divided and ruled" over (after around 1900), and 2) are still being divided and ruled over (around the year 2000), by outside powers.
"The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: wrong.
It is so misunderstood, because it is as much a strategy of "top down" measures of power players, as it is of "bottom up" failure (human nature).
The "dissention" is created by fanboys/fangirls defending the actions of their own "favorites" (individuals/systems/"-isms"/etc.)
It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid the divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use the technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
The Big Lie is the power of the divide and rule/conquer technique, and even the Nazis hid their "Big Lie"-conspiracy theory, behind an even bigger lie: how they intended to play this game until they got into power after their failed coup d'etat.
The "Big Lie" is not a myth but a misrepresentation of the truth.
It is the power of "divide and rule/conquer" which lurks behind every strategy they follow, in order to gain.
No human being has ever come up with a means to overcome this age-old technique of ruling over billions of people, because it is predicated on human nature itself, which is enduring.
No power player wants to become associated with authoritarian, or "colonial" tactics and strategies, or Nazis, so they cannot use it as a political means to attack rivals: it will immediately result in blowback.
The "Big Lie" conspiracy masked the divide and rule technique.
No power player can ever accuse any other power player of using it, since it will immediately backfire: the accusation of using the technique themselves, which in most cases of intent of gain will even apply***. The disguise usually comes in the form of scapegoating or another form of appeal to the emotion of listeners, or addressing and fortifying their already existing biases.
"Scapegoating" = an appeal to lower emotions of potential supporters.
In our divided societies, appealing to these biases might always be that tiny little "weight" that tilts the scale in very tightly run political elections.
Most power players read books on strategy, with the intention of using these strategies for personal gain, not because they wish to benefit you (the individual). There is always the urge to defend own favored systems, when one reads perceived "attacks" on these favored systems or own heroes, and the beloved own "-isms", which also reveal standard procedures, meaning the "attacker" soon falls into predetermined pathways to deflect and obfuscate from the core theory...
Great Britain did not "win" from the "divide and rule/conquer" system they had set up in Europe, which was a matter of long-term standing policy (historical analysis based on the observation of events), which resulted in London making the strongest continental power their "default rival/enemy" system.
Britons (average citizens) lost BIG TIME.
Most of what we are fed by our systems, as "rote-learnt"-details, are the "99% ancillary details" which make us mere "Bricks in the Wall": not saying these theories are untrue or wrong, but simply that they are not as important on the ranking or "tiers" of events as on the top tier of geopolitics and grand strategy.
For these geostrategists, divide and rule/conquer is their main strategy, regardless of what you as an individual believe.
Footnotes:
***only applies in competitive "intent of gain" systems, not benevolent forms of reciprocal human interaction which are 100% fair, or such systems lacking "power" of any global reach...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
London went to war on the continent twice, by own admission, to "balance powers" on the continent...
London's standpoint, by own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell = the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
And so the London lords played their "balancing games".
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
Not satire at all.
That's what happened.
How absolutely funny...
The lords gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for their own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire.
Good riddance.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They "hopped on the scale" here, and they "hopped on the scale there", until they finally "hopped" their way into extinction...
Sad.
Yup.
Bombsa away, then "Good riddance".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Germans get the blast, Empire gets the "past"...
Wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@geoffreynhill2833 Yes, I actually agree with your analysis that with the political "doves" that it was (most likely) "compassion/sympathy" for the plight of survivors, which led to the favoratism of Zionism to "succeed" in the ME. That is what is meant with the saying "most of the harm in the world was caused by those who set out with good intentions".
In other words, the emotionally steered, who "wish to do good", who do not consider the impact of their decisions or their standpoints.
"Sympathy/compassion" for and "-ism" is however, exactly how "divide and rule" works, which I will explain in a bit longer essay below this answer. Human emotions, and those who wish to "doo good" are employed as tools by imperialist, and therefore become the "extensions" of imperilaist causes.
This is ot just something I've pulled out of my sleeve, on a spur of the moment, but an actual analyses of hundreds of historical examples, of "setting out with good intentions" but then actually supporting IMPERIALISM indirectly. In imperialism, there is ALWAYS the "feeling" in supporters, of being better than others, thereby granting this support by "masses".
These "masses" then in the end, usually end up "in the trenches" in the geopolitical setups they've helped to create. The "circle" is then complete.
1
-
1
-
@geoffreynhill2833 This essay is a template created out of thousands of historical examples, and equally valid for what took place in the Levant, as a strategy of POWER, the "divide and rule"-technique.
The strategy of "divide and rule/conquer" is the force to influence billions of minds, and is strategy acting in conjunction with human nature (particularly, emotions). It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: that is wrong.
It is misunderstood, because it is as much a strategy of "top down" measures of power players, as it is of "bottom up" failure (human nature). The "dissention" is created by fans defending the actions of their own "favorites" (individuals/systems/"-isms"/etc.), and you can study it here, in this comments section, or in politics, in debates, or on campusses, in fact: everywhere. Human beings are "dividing" themselves, because unlike their elites who steer this "divide and rule" top down, the "bottom" cannot focus on a single guideline.
For individuals, like us, it does not matter how one "feels" about anything: in the systemic analysis, it is simply about "systems" and the strategies these systems used.
Dividing the opposition is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid the divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is. Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use the technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you and me as commoners will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. All power players regardless of the system of gain in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter the shark tank of the "divide and rule"-system.
The favorite = favoratism = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matsjonsson9492 Causality is not logical.
Causal chains of events have nothing to do with reasoning or logic.
It is also not about emotions like "deserve it".
Islam is a "tool" for their side (the smiling men in the shadows), the same way that money, corruption, twisting of words, false propaganda, etc. are the tools of our side (our smiling men in the shadows).
Religion is a tool. In this case a political tool.
The radicalisation of Islam is an "effect", not a "cause".
There would never have been so many push and pull factors for these "pied pipers" of hate, if we (the west/Chritians...GB, France in 1919, the USA as the alpha male after 1950) did not go to their world. It is irrelevant whether you are personally a Christian or not (I know you aren't), or whether Sweden is a part of NATO (I know it isn't) or not. Causal chains of events unfold and doesn't care about emotions. Causality is indifferent.
Again, I'm not an apologist.
I'll explain what happens, whether you object or not.
There will not be peace, until the day we leave their world.
If our leaders were smart, they would decrease out depency on oil and withdraw the funding of our "enemies" such as Iran. The entire region became a sh*thole because of oil, and the tons of money thrown at corrupt political structures ("divide and rule" by the west/Cold War).
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matsjonsson9492 Another comment of yours not based on facts or reality.
The old "no such thing as a moderate Muslim"- Sam Harris bs.
FYI, there are 1.6 BILLION Muslims, and most of them are in alliances with western nations (or Russia). WTF are you talking about?
We are not negotiating with Muslim leaders in Indonesia, Saudia Arabia, Oman, Jordan, Tunesia, Morocco, Pakistan, Dubai, Malaysia, and dozens of others? Of course we are. We have trade deals, go there as tourists.
Have you been to the Maldives?
Here's the thing.
Go to their world with open arms, and you'll get greeted with open arms.
Come with a sword, and you'll be greeted with a sword.
Come with evil intent, anywhere in the world and you'd receive a EQUAL answer.
Remember? Newton :-)
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The REAL aim is still China.
Spot their "frontlines" (in times of peace) as potential "unsinkable aircraft carriers."
Russia, desired as territory as eventually "carved up" into smaller pieces and turned into future minions, is simply the means to an end.
Korea, Vietnam, Ukraine...
Will the little minions ("buck catchers" in strategy) ever learn?
Those who eagerly "carve up" others, even along arbitrary human-made boundaries on a map, dividing individuals, organisations, families, and businesses, are unlikely to agree with being "carved up" by someone else.
Korea was divided by imperialists during World War II (with the cooperation of the imperialist Allied camp) without consulting the local population about their priorities.
A few years later, they attempted the same in Vietnam, using the ongoing war of independence as a pretext (marketed as "the USA saving the world from communism"). This time the imperialist "winners" of WW2 were on opposing sides. The effort was unsuccessful.
The true objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China
According to Wikipedia: "Main article: China containment policy. As articulated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-term strategic initiative to encircle Beijing with the USSR and its satellite states, as well as: The Japan–Korea front, The India–Pakistan front, and The Southeast Asia front. Although President Johnson claimed that the goal of the Vietnam War was to ensure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a memorandum from January 1965 by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton indicated that an underlying justification was "not to assist a friend, but to contain China". On November 3, 1965, Secretary of Defense McNamara sent a memorandum to Johnson, outlining "major policy decisions regarding our course of action in Vietnam". The memorandum begins by revealing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965: 'The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they support a long-term United States policy to contain China. McNamara accused China of having imperial ambitions similar to those of the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States: 'China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30s, and like the USSR in 1947—emerges as a significant power threatening to undermine our importance and effectiveness globally and, more distantly but more ominously, to unite all of Asia against us.'
Note that this is a common tactic in international relations: accuse the "other side" of actions that one is undertaking oneself. The strategy of divide-and-rule is kept hidden, while the opposing side is accused of having malicious intentions, without providing any actual evidence (the concept of "accusation without proof"). To encircle China, the United States aimed to establish "three fronts" as part of a "long-term effort to contain China": 'There are three fronts to a long-term effort to contain China (recognising that the USSR "contains" China to the north and northwest): (a) the Japan–Korea front; (b) the India–Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.'
Later, McNamara acknowledged that containing China would ultimately cost America a considerable amount of time, money, and lives. As is often the case, "extending" a rising rival power incurs "expenses", including lives, which is why the intention is to create proxies in artificial entities like "South Vietnam" to carry out such containment for the dominant power.
This is divide-and-rule.
Favouritism, or the "paid/supported proxy", can be employed during peacetime to undermine rivals or wage subversive warfare, or during wartime to reduce costs and losses while gaining systemic advantages after a "victory". When a proxy fails to achieve this "extension of the rival", it is quickly abandoned or discarded to cut the "investment", and a new proxy is sought. This pattern was evident in the 1930s: in 1939, the "first proxy" identified was Poland, and when Poland failed to "extend Germany" for a prolonged period, it was decided to provoke either Germany or the USSR to invade Scandinavia (Plan R4). Ideally, both Germany and the SU would invade Scandinavia, leading to a potential clash there, distracting attacks away from the heartlands. While Great Britain and France still cooperated, this was straightforward: both would benefit if the war "pivoted away" from Western Europe/British Isles into Scandinavia. If the attention could be focused somewhere else on the map, a Battle of Britain and a Battle of France could potentially be avoided, if the Germans became bogged down in Scandinavia for example...
That did not occur.
However.
Align with such individuals at your own risk.
They do not adhere to the Christian values they consistently boast as being "oh-so-superior" and worthy of admiration...
North Korea/South Korea (implemented "unsinkable aircraft carrier").
North Vietnam/South Vietnam (intention/failure).
East Ukraine/West Ukraine (in progress).
Always the same playbook.
The modus operandi has been consistent since 1776: advancing onto another power's borders (systematically), also through proxies, then blaming those who are encroached upon/encircled if they react, or blaming the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War advance began in the 1990s, so even if the Trump administration did not initiate the "marching order", it is a fact that he did not halt it either when he had the chance during his first term (2017-2021). This can be examined as empirical evidence (observation/map) which clarifies who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should avoid engaging with debaters who base their theories on ideology or emotions, especially not if the advocate reveals themselves as dogmatic, prone to logical fallacies or cognitive biases. Such individuals are not interested in outcomes but wish to make "debates" go in circles indefinitely, obfuscating, side-lining, and finger-pointing to evade the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current trajectory of the empire, which began when the USSR faced economic decline in the late 1980s, with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the advance)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the advance)
Continuously advance, trampling over one red line after another, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). If anything negative occurs, and lives are lost, always blame someone else. This type of imperialist behaviour, as demonstrated by Washington DC and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not begin solely after World War II. This marching order has been in place since 1776, with the first victims being neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territories were coveted. That was followed by Spain in the 1890s (put into action in 1898) whose desirable territories would create a link between the USA and East Asia.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries so that any economic surplus generated by that country is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US government, and especially to US bondholders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It remains the same today as it has since 1776.
The reality is that neither Trump nor any previous administration has halted this (systemic) "slow march" of systemic expansion, whilst getting the "buck catcher" to pick up the tab if things don't turn out as strategized.
Be cautious of the ideologically indoctrinated: Like a child, they confidently repeat things they do not know to be true.
1
-
1
-
POWER. DOESN'T. CARE.
Maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are trapped in a "divide and rule world", and it has been all about PROFITS and CONTROL over the people.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created facts. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, chemical engineers, nuclear scientists, Sarin/Tabun plants, and dozens of factories dismantled and taken east, machine tools, etc., etc., etc., etc.).
Our dear leaders gave the commies 100 million minions in Europe, and another 500 million in Asia...
Stalin said "thank you so very much for all this innovation and technology", and would use it to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight his "commie dream world" in the other half...
Winston Churchill to Stalin: "Let's sign a PERCENTAGES AGREEMENT, and share Europe...."
Cute Uncle Joe Stalin: "Here's Greece, I'll take the rest 100%, including your fwiends Poland. Got nukes? No? Got powerful allies? No?
Got a powerful continental power to hop onto as you've done throughout history to save your Empire? No? Well $%# off then".
Commies chuckling in unison: "Whadda ya gonna do about it? Want a tissue?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Read the thesis again.
For example the part of how the British government "underpaid" the true cost of the bombers themselves by subsidizing parts and equipment.
That then results in "hidden costs" which are financially booked elsewhere, but ended up in debt anyway.
The entire "resources wasted" part of the debate cannot be put down in a simple "Pound figure", which is why I wrote "third to half of the British war effort" (note, not Empire's war effort).
Even it it were "only" 10% it will still be a waste, because it contributed almost nothing to winning.
Why?
Because not a single "benefit" of flattening an entire city and maybe sometimes damaging/destroying/delaying a German factory as "collateral damage" that could not also have been achieved with 50 or 60 Mosquitoes at a fraction of the cost/manpower/crew losses/war effort (fuel, bombs, air bases, etc., etc., etc.).
Too bad you're not willing to understand, and make excuses for these pathetic "Lord types" because you've been convinced by "patriots" that everybody who tells you this "hates GB" or is a "wehraboo", or whatever...
Nope.
None of that.
GB was lead by a bunch of dumb "Lord types" who ruined what 400 years of Empire-building had achieved.
Read the thesis again, and try to gain an insight into the concept of "wasteful".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Diese Geschichte, wiederholt sich im ewigen Kreis.
First they came for...
Father Niemöller's appeal to our morality, was of course also an appeal to honor basic principle's in logic and reason, which is the "balance of power". The logic of such politics is, that The bigger power comes for the others one-by-one, but is not going to inform the masses of the end plan. Therefore the logic is unity FIRST, regardless of any FEELINGS (appeals to emotions).
First they came for Spain (Footnote 1), because I did not live here and was distracted by the BLACK LEGEND and therefore did not care. Then, they came for tiny little Colombia, but I did not care because I was mesmerized by my own dreams of grandeur (Footnote 1). Then, they came for Central European monarchies, but I did not care because I did not live here and wasn't a monarchist and therefore did not do anything. Finally, they came for the British Empire, (footnote 2), and there was nobody left to forge a "pattern of relationships" with (footnote 3)...
Of course, what many don't realize is that the "Father Niemöller"-logic was a much a statement regarding the "balance of power" than it was regarding moral values: when "they" come for the last one, in its hour of weakness, there will be nobody else to turn to. The Lordships apparently misjudging the concept of balance of power, which was shifting from a purely European concept, towards a rapidly becoming necessary global concept. The entire concept of a balance of power is a neutral study, and any liberal "friendships" have no bearing on the greed of expansive forces of a commercial or financial manner, as London would find out after World War 2 (footnote 4). With regards to this systemic logic of cutting out one's feelings in order to protect oneself: first, the system U.S.A. came for the system Spain, but the system European empires were too divided to care. The end for European empires came fifty years later, when there was nobody left to speak for them.
With regards to the U.S.A. in its interactions with European powers: observation reveals that Washington, D.C. did not sign long term binding agreements of geopolitical and grand strategy nature with any European power. In the late-19th century, only London had the clout to forge a European alliance against U.S. expansion, so here is where Washington D.C. inserted the main "lever" of influence (strategy); but perceptions here were misguided.
They came with promises and nice deals to favourites...
--------------------------------------------
Footnote 1
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China": This gateway was in the form of the already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines (partial purchase of infrastructure) and Guam and protection for the seaways in between, as future axis of advance. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull as a fitting allegory. To achieve all of this Washington, D.C. needed European indifference for the cause of a weak failing empire from within their own European midst (Darwinism). Of course Europe was divided, but had they united to stand in solidarity with Madrid, then a war could have been averted. The "march route" of the empire.
--------------------------------------------
Footnote 2
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
-----------------------------------------------
Footnote 3
"In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."[wiki]
"Saving the world" is of course an appeal to emotion.
Siphoning off the world's wealth is covered up by the storyline millions chant as "slogans" and adhere to with "banner waving" (teams of ingroups). The quiet part is kept quiet, which is how the divide-and-rule technique is used to create IMbalances of power, is kept quiet. Keep other apart with lies, promises, and own policies.
-----------------------------------------------
Footnote 4
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbors. For the American century after 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). For the "divider," the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books.
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source)
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies.
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
EPISODE I:
"... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies (ALL MORE THAN ADEQUATELY ELABORATED in the below comments section) called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
EPISODES II thru IV:
Lotsa other stuff happening.
EPISODE V:
If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003
Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice.
Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power.
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevereal- The big picture.
The "biggest" of all.
During WW2, the British Empire bombed itself into destruction, by destroying the BALANCE OF POWER.
You see, Steve, if even 5-year old kids understand the concept of a COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, but hordes of rich, proud, hectoring, squibbing, carniverous adults do not, and allow themselves to be deceived, there is no hope for entire regions and continents of the planet.
Little kids playing "King of the Mountain" (a game) already instinctively grasp the concept of the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, because once they have themselves spit, clawed and yanked their way to the "top of the mountain," suddenly the "winner" invents a NEW RULE out of the blue, making all forms of "spitting, clawing, and yanking" illegal...
You understand?
After steering the British Empire in a convenient position of weakness, and tanking its industry/production with the allocation of MARKETS, American leaders wanted a 'service economy' for the USA (following after the 1970s/1980s), with the manual labor outsourced onto the rimlands (geopolitics). It is an old Roman strategy of power to create dependencies. A core heartland, surrounded by entire countries as 'workshops'/dollar tributaries for the American Century. This was written out as a desirable outcome, an agenda, in the 1940s ...
"In the early Cold War, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson combined the concepts of preponderance and bandwagoning. As he put it, the United States was going to have to be "the locomotive at the head of mankind," while the rest of the world was going to be "the caboose." (wiki)
Note, to all not old enough to know, a "caboose" is the dirty car at the back of the freight train, were all the riff-raff go.
1
-
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the resources (note, the term "resources" is not restricted to "finances" alone), of the British Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort (a different concept yet again), was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German and other Axis industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks on the ground created facts. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, nuclear scientists, Sarin/Tabun plants, and dozens of factories dismantled and taken east, machine tools, innovation, etc., etc., etc., etc.).
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
Winston Churchill: "Let's sign a PERCENTAGES AGREEMENT to share the Balkans, and introduce "democwacy" to share eastern Europe...."
Cute Uncle Joe Stalin: "Here's Greece, I'll take the rest 100%, including your fwiends Poland. Got nukes? [**see footnote] No? Got powerful allies? No? Well bugger off then."
Commies in Moscow: "Lose our gains with democracy? LOL. It's ours. Whadda ya gonna do about it? Want a tissue?"
1
-
Aww well
Deals are a "scrap of paper" if one doesn't have the leverage to ensure that signatures are also honored...
"Many prominent British scientists were soon transferred to the United States to work on the Manhattan Project. The team of 19 scientists from the British project who worked at Los Alamos included Chadwick, Peierls, Fuchs, and William Penney. Nevertheless, General Leslie Groves, who disapproved of collaboration, put the British scientists in limited roles to restrict their access to complete information.
In September 1944, a second summit was held in Quebec City to discuss plans for the final assault on Germany and Japan. A few days later, Churchill and his family went to Roosevelt’s estate in Hyde Park, New York. The two leaders pledged in a memorandum, “Full collaboration between the United States and the British Government in developing Tube Alloys [a codeword for nuclear technology] for military and commercial purposes should continue after the defeat of Japan unless and until terminated by joint agreement” (Goldschmidt 217).
Despite this promise, the death of Roosevelt in 1945 marked the end of wartime collaboration. President Truman chose not to abide by this second agreement, and United States nuclear research was formally classified in the 1946 Atomic Energy Act.
The British had contributed to the successful creation of an atomic bomb, and yet after the war were faced with the reality that they had been cut off from its secrets."
[From atomicheritage]
Truman: "If you want to build a bomb, develop it yourself. Thanks for your assistance btw. I'll tear up this scrap of paper now. What are you going to do about it?" (smirks smugly)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "biggest loser" of the systemic conflagrations that were "WW1" and "WW2" was the great divider/grand encircler London/British Empire. Around the year 1900 its lords set out to encircle (by proxy) its biggest contester.
HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books.
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source)
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies.
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
EPISODE I:
"... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies (ALL MORE THAN ADEQUATELY ELABORATED in the below comments section) called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
EPISODES II thru IV:
Lotsa other stuff happening.
EPISODE V:
If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003
Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice.
Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power.
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it.
1
-
1
-
@aleksandarbabic766 It's divide-and-rule.
At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule.
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others...
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favouritism.
"Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Africa, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the behavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD"
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact. It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of. What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of those in search of profit and in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. For the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact that it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politicians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles (see my comment 4 weeks ago).
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct date on the timeline which is March 1939, when they did nothing.
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not in my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies. How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets have they. Me want some...me take some."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen positive relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Curb the darker aspects which create internal division.
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Be principled, or become a tool.
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up.
Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Channels who use the "free speech" excuse to make blanket statements discrimination against certain races, ethnicities, political affiliation, or religions, should weigh their words carefully, or get banned. Period.
Nothing, but nothing to do with free speech, if one discriminates on entire groups, based on the actions of individuals in that group.
Both the far-left, and the far-right have few inhibitions concerning misdirection, lies and deceit...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How "divide and rule/conquer" is revealed by events, not by digging around in archives.
Wiki: "The Paris Economy Pact was an international economic agreement reached at the Paris Economic Conference, held from 14 June 1916 in Paris. The meeting, held at the height of World War I, included representatives of the Allied Powers: Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and Russia." After a "won war" (perspective of 1916), these powers plus their dominions, colonies, and the potential "liberated assets" of the defeated nations after the "won war"-scenario (German colonies, German naval vessels, markets and concessions,etc.), formed a ring of powerful European survivors (plus one upcoming power in Asia) almost encircling the USA (geopolitics).
After the USA joined the war in full force, Russia was soon out of this potential "alliance of the winners" after the November Revolution in 1917, without much outside input.
One down, 4 to go.
Next out was Italy, by sending her liberals running back home crying (Wilson sowing dissent between the "winners" from the inside, a means used in "divide and rule". In this case, by "ruling" that her favorite's secret deals counted more that the secret deals made with Italy)
Two down, 3 to go...
After GB was persuaded to "dump Japan" by replacing a binding defence alliance with a wishy-washy non-binding "4 power treaty" (more detail in the thread below)...
Three down, 2 left..."
All that was left was the "cordial" non-binding "Entente of 1904 (GB/France).
These two "no obligations, just friends" (GB/France), just happened to be "US favorites" too. More "no obligations, just friends" (favoratism, another means used in "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies).
Europe was divided again.
Just like 1914.
Wilson at Versailles is often hailed as the idealistic neutral who wanted to save Europe...
Reality?
He was there as a forerunner of the American Century.
He came, he saw, and [divided and] conquered.
Vini, vidi, vici in slow motion.
Then he left again.
The USA didn't sign anything.
The USA didn't join any "leagues" of nations.
The USA didn't tie its hands with any rules.
There were no obligations, except the "rules" written by an expansionist Washington DC in the background ("think tanks" and other centers of strategic research).
A few years later, at the Washington Conference, her navy was "on par" with GB/Empire.
From an obscure colony on the fringes to a "5-5-3-2-2" (GB/USA/Japan/France/Italy) division of naval power in a 150 years.
Wilson: "Look at them jojos...that's the way you do it, get your empire for nothing and division for free..." ;-)
He was no different to most previous US Presidents, who put the USA first.
And the "USA first" was best achieved by keeping those plucky Europeans divided.
Watch "THIS is how to do it when things look hopeless! 💪🏻" on YouTube (Dave Wattle's win over 800m at the Olympics in 1972).
This is actual strategy explained on a small scale (sport event) which can be applied to all situatons of hierarchy and potential gain, incl. the "states/empires"-level of events.
The "no obligations, just friends"-side "hangs back" and strikes at an opportune moment when everybody else least expects it, are distracted, or simply tired (incl. "overburdened by debt" in the big picture of states/empires).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened. The word "rule" also constitutes a "trigger", or natural aversion, which would mean psychologically oposing a theory, simply based on the words used.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please, lol.
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage (see below comments thread for a few). These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favoratism.
"Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
1
-
1
-
It's divide-and-rule.
At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule.
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others...
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favouritism.
"Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Africa, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the behavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD"
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact. It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of. What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of those in search of profit and in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. For the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact that it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What do they want?
A tale as old as the Bible.
Esau and Jacob is of course a cautionary tale to beware of brothers who come to you with a GIFT which has morphed over time and now means "winning means everything". Note that in this biblical "tale" about eternal deceit and "cheating own brothers out of their inheritance", that the deceiver is the hero of the story, and this warning has been taken as a guideline by strategists.
Those who end up with the RICHES under your feet, are the heroes. The deceiver's name and slimy ways continue.
Esau the inheritor and his father's favourite, as a name has sorta died out. Just remember, wherever you live, that you just a "dog" in a "manger" (Churchill), and that the RESOURCES intended to be passed onto you as natural inheritance, belong to these OUTSIDERS, in these OUTSIDERS heads, and according to the strategies of these OUTSIDERS. The "smooth talking good guy", the spiffy clean deceiver, scamming his own brother, whilst arguing like a woman creating division within unity and creating the BLACK LEGEND of his brother (the "bad guy"), is the "hero" of history. The original wedge diplomacy, to avoid unity between the owner of the resources, and the inheritor. Very telling indeed.
The owner/donor/ruling class want your "inheritance", and they will lie, steal, and send their ki!!ers to get CONTROL of it...
Divide-and-rule.
"If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past." - Baruch Spinoza
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@normster1000 So we agree.
"Barbary pirates" were really terrible people, so good that upright, deeply religious, God-fearing, rightious 'muricans "took care of them"....lmfao
The Trail of Tears was a series of forced relocations of Native Americans in the United States from their ancestral homelands in the Southeastern United States, to areas to the west of the Mississippi River that had been designated as Indian Territory. The forced relocations were carried out by government authorities following the passage of the Indian Removal Act in 1830. The relocated peoples suffered from exposure, disease, and starvation while en route to their new designated reserve, and many died before reaching their destinations. The forced removals included members of the Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations, as well as their African slaves. The phrase "Trail of Tears" originates from a description of the removal of many Native American tribes, including the Cherokee Nation relocation in 1838.[1][2][3]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Islam is cancer No, it should be 10 times more, because you're confusing cause and effect.
The USA should be swamped with the refugees of the wars they create around the globe. Wars on Drugs, wars on terrorism (which they created in the first place), drone wars here, a little bit of bombing there, wars for oil, war on this...war on that...
CIA covert operations, regime change invasions, intervention, support of dictatorial and crooked governments.
Reap what you sow, 'murica...
So, first you fund the constant wars with your tax dollars.
Then you fund the walls to keep the resulting poverty this creates out.
Then, you fund for-profit "detention centers", and overflowing for-profit prisons...all with your tax dollars.
Then, voting an idiot billionaire into power, in it for himself and his cronies...
No wonder the rest of the world is laughing at your pathetic country...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How geopolitics links the wars in the Ukraine and Palestine.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I see.... The USA/NATO has the most powerful "weapon" on its side: feelings.
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
Asking the wrong questions on a limited scope and timeline will not reveal the divide-and-rule technique.
The empire set off on the "G-G Line" from Germany to Greece, during the First Cold War after declaring war ("cold" war/1947).
It advanced to the "B-B Line" from the Baltics to the Black Sea (see footnote) after the "peace" was declared to the plebs after the 1990s, and a bright new future pwomised to all the children of history, believers...
How long do you think it will take for the empire, wriggling and writhing about ("divide-and-rule"), hopping over here and there ("pivoting") before they reach the "A-A Line"?
‐-----------
The "B-B Line".
When people start thinking in terms of dichotomies like winning/losing, left/right wing, us/them, right/wrong, unity/division, they are already all "losers."
Think in terms of a desirable outcome. If not, lose.
Outsiders fabricate the "crescent of crises" around your heartland.
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
If outsiders come from outside and start drawing lines on the map, through your homelands without asking the people who live there.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. They allow outsiders to play the cards FOR them.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS. Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wmthewyld It has been illegal to discriminate against any religion, ever since the Constitution was written (1st Amendment).
However, despite the founding documents of the USA, ALL PEOPLE were NOT the same, as is written down in ink.
The documents did not stop the discrimination against other races to continue (despite the beautifully crafted words). Blacks, Native Americans, etc. were constantly discriminated against (jobs, housing, etc.) BASED ON WHAT THEY ARE.
After 40 years of fighting, the LGBTQ community FINALLY managed to be included in the laws that made illegal to discriminate against them, BASED ON WHAT THEY ARE.
Chow, and other "good Christians" are fighting a battle to take that away from them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A lot of ancillary and totally irrelavant details.
It was a London policy which made the strongest continental power the default "rival in peace", and the default "enemy in war".
London had 2 chances to correct their faulty reasoning.
One with Wilhelm II, roughly until 1900, until German leaders lost their patience trying to get a mutually beneficial treaty with London.
The 2nd chance, after WW1, while Germany was a democracy.
They blew both chances, and would subsequently lose their Empire.
Because roughly in parallel to Germany on the continent across the English Channel, there was another "new power" rising across the Atlantic, whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”
It was the USA.
Or "maybe they (Europe) won't notice if we sneak up on them..."
The American Century advocates in Washington DC were very good at "biding time" until they were strong enough to eclipse "the old", and not to care anymore.
With the "leverage" geography gave them (distance from squabbling Europeans), plus a drastically increasing power, as technology shrunk the world, they knew they would just have to wait long enough until the eternally squabbling Europeans had torn themselves to shreds.
Because in the arsenals of M-A-I-N there was another "weapon".
Well-known at the time, and formulated into words by John Quincy Adams: "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country: One is by sword and one is by debt."
Note: it was "a plan" of sorts.
Wait.
Simply wait.
Washington DC/The American Century: "Let's see what happens. Never let a crisis or war go to waste."
Washington DC: If your rivals are making a mistake, don't interrupt them...
The main big difference?
While London afronted/confronted the strongest continental power/alliance which was Germany and the Dual Alliance at the time, as a matter of policy, the USA made the strongest power/alliance the "temporary friend" during crises and wars, only to overpower it commercially/economically/financially after WW2 was over."
Smart.
Kaiser Bill wished for "a place in the sun" (i.e. "markets", and "spheres of influence").
IMHO they should've just given him one, without the push-back.
It was greed and the control-freak instincts of "old empires", jealously guarding their own.
What unfolded after that, was basically a bed Europe had made for themselves, and with WW1, Versailles (and others like Saint-Germaine, or Trianon) and WW2, had to sleep in.
1
-
1
-
The first "globalists" were merchants, as so-called "mercantilism."
Wiki: "Mercantilism is a nationalist economic policy that is designed to maximize the exports and minimize the imports for an economy. In other words, it seeks to maximize the accumulation of resources within the country and use those resources for one-sided trade." They united with other systems of POWER (like militarism, and imperialism), to achieve the own aims and goals.
Then came the "internationalist."
Wiki: "Internationalism is a political principle that advocates greater political or economic cooperation among states and nations.[1] It is associated with other political movements and ideologies, but can also reflect a doctrine, belief system, or movement in itself. Supporters of internationalism are known as internationalists and generally believe that humans should unite across national, political, cultural, racial, or class boundaries to advance their common interests, or that governments should cooperate because their mutual long-term interests are of greater importance than their short-term disputes."
In all instances of history, such powers united top-down, in order to force realities which were beneficial to the own causes. The powers driving internationalism were not going to rely on capitalism to to ensure the future of their own products, or the superiority of other systems of gain. They were going to employ top-down POWER to enforce it, and history full of examples of such allocation of POWER (colonialism on the one side, robber barons on the other).
But that was a loooong time ago, so let's concentrate on a more recent post-WW2 history of globalists ambitions in a more recent, and therefore more relevant history...
Wiki: "The term first came into widespread usage in the United States.[18] The modern concept of globalism arose in the post-war debates of the 1940s in the United States.[19] In their position of unprecedented power, planners formulated policies to shape the kind of postwar world they wanted, which in economic terms meant a globe-spanning capitalist order centered exclusively upon the United States. This was the period when its global power was at its peak: the United States was the greatest economic power the world had known, with the greatest military machine in history.[20] In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."[21] America's allies and foes in Eurasia were still recovering from World War II at this time ..."
In this time of mutual European exhaustion, the USA could implement its own vision for the planet, without the fear of having any other opposing force stand up to it.
These forces of POWER have been around for a long time, and never ended, nor were they ever "satiated" (Bismarck).
They reach their aims by "dividing" opposing forces.
They united and created mutually beneficial giant converging interests systems of power.
Giant cyclic dynamical systems of POWER as a "club," but "you ain't in it" (George Carlin).
They intended to keep some "down" and others "out" as strategies of power.
They add power to some systems if useful, and subtract power from other systems if it is beneficial.
They gain if others lose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's divide-and-rule.
At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule.
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others...
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favouritism.
"Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Africa, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the behavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD"
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact. It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of. What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of those in search of profit and in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. For the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact that it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The sunk cost fallacy moment is nearing fast.
It's "1916" on the timeline for Europe/Eurasia...AGAIN.
The collective hive mind in the capital cities in the USA/collective West (Allies 1916 = NATO post-1990) must decide soon whether to "write the Ukraine off" or "invest more". Do not expect a wise answer from those who do not intend to suffer from any effects their own decisions will result in. According to the strategies of the wise, it states "if all else fails, retreat" (see the 36 stratagems of power).
They want their "Versailles moment" as "victory"...AGAIN.
The framers/manipulators in power have already "tried everything else" and failed, but do not expect them to "retreat" and lose their "investments." They will "Pivot to Asia" (Iran, South China Sea, or thereabouts) and sacrifice your daughter (current debates) before they send their own sons off to the wars they have lain the foundations for. That was not different around 1900, than it was around the year 2000.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FREEDOM vs. CONSCRIPTION
I just came here from a video with thousands of angry comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, Germans, Poles, etc. stating "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go", or anger at incompetent politicians. They mirror those made by thousands of comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand how power works. It does not matter what they think. It was what millions of young men already said a century ago in the leadup to their governments' declarations of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me".
JOHN MEARSHEIMER THEORY/SYSTEMIC ANALYSIS
There can only be a few "winners". The rest are the systemic cannon fodder for the gain of those who pass the buck. The "buck passer" is of course the weakest of all minds. Democratic systems of course offer the perfect environments for the opportune to practice eternal "passing the buck": none of these leaders ever did anything wrong (sic.), nobody ever decided anything bad (sic.), nobody ever lied, and everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and lower-tiered finger-pointers...
Here is what they did in both cases (around 1900, and again around the year 2000). Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power in times of peace, by the aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) by men who knew that neither they, nor their own offspring or friends, would ever have to face the consequences of an own unjustifiable standpoint. That means doing to another state/country/alliance what they would never consider acceptable, if done onto them: encircle them, encroach on them, restrict a fair access to the globe's resources.
How do we know this is true?
Because it actually happened, and can be observed.
"I no longer listen to what people say, I just watch what they do. Behavior never lies." - Winston Churchill
Yes, Winnie. What can be observed, and plotted on the map, is not a "lie".
Humdeedum some time passes. By golly, no more personal "freedom", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the muddy trench to enforce Step 1. Guess who "wins"? The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup over the world. Those who hold the GEOGRAPHICALLY opportune advantage of the "higher ground" or the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Europe is already lost, and it started down the slippery slope following the year 1900. The window for adapting is closing fast.
In this regard, I'll refer to a recent questionnaire carried out in Kiev, in which the interviewee honestly answered the question what the election of the Trump admin will mean to the Ukraine, with "The Ukraine is e-ffed, and will end like Poland in 1939." This is far from anecdotal, since it is an actual strategy of power to "bleed friends, and gain." Ukraine today = Poland 1939 = "fight to the last Pole" in 1939, and fight to the last Ukrainian soldier today. The way history rhymes, reveals the strategies of power.
That answer is valid for the USAs "friends" (see Kissinger's logic of it being "deadly to be the USAs friend").
The problem is that Europe is filled with weak and sycophantic leaders who make friends with people who tell them exactly what they can expect. For any Eastern European, an eternal NATO as protective shield is quite the speculative assumption as default setting for an argument, seeing that it was only quite recently formed (with regards to the history of Europe). There should therefore be no definite conclusion that it is going to last forever (Lindy's Law). NATO was created in order to surround/encircle the SU after WW2, as the "fist" of European power which was steered by the USA as it rose from the ashes of WW2, and for exactly this purpose. It's function was to ensure US global hegemony and domination, and encircle/encroach on the USSR together with Japan, Formosa/Taiwan, South Korea, etc. (as staging areas) on the other side of Eurasia.
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Only the fact nukes were available saved the planet from a conventional "WW3"-scenario declared out of a local/limited war, and which would have invariably started soon after 1945, and after a short breather filled with limited wars around the fringes. All accompanied by new set of "finger pointing "Who started it?"-rhetorical geniuses who would have been set up against each other, sitting in the trenches of such a "conventional WW3"-scenario. Thank goodness both sides had nukes, so the restraint was systemic and declaring war would have been a MAD act. That was of course in opposite to the logic of both WW1 and WW2, which were declared by the hegemony, from the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER (long war scenario) strategizing how it could win, if only such a declared war remained a "long war scenario" in which others bled for the continued status quo.
What saved the planet after WW2 was over, was that there would be no way to make a nuclear war a "long war scenario."
If one wants to reason and understand "Why WW1/WW2?" That's it. Create a situation which would be unacceptable for oneself (grand strategy of becoming encircled by a pattern of relationships), then impose this exact grand strategy onto the power rising in economic strength, and then wait for the situation to deteriorate, calling out a "world war" at an opportune moment, gathering in all the little "buck catchers" to do most of the fighting and dying, by standing off from the conflict as long as possible, using a GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER. After WW2, NATO was created (first step of escalation), in the self-declared Cold War, which started in 1946 ("Iron Curtain" as first emotional appeal, followed by further step-by-step strategy of escalating reality) because it was useful to the ambitions of Washington DC to become the world's leading power. Read the strategy papers. There was no "hot WW3" after 1945, because that would have been kinda self-defeating for the new global hegemony to declare it, based on some or other local limited war being declared the own "final red line".
Reality: Before 1945, the then global hegemony...
Declared WW1 (out of a series of local limited wars on the continent), to avoid the single hegemony on the continent.
Declared WW2 (out of a series of local limited wars on the continent), to avoid the single hegemony on the continent.
Declared the Cold War, by encircling its main continental European/Eurasian rival. "Declaring" a world war out of that, was not possible, so wars remained "by proxy". Note the word "hegemony" is a term/defined word, not a country (different definition). The hegemony changed in the course of WW2.
Let's see if the pattern (geopolitics/grand strategy) rhymes again...
NATO can be disbanded or weakened the minute it suites the Pentagon/Washington DC, by simply withdrawing from it by pushing issues until some of the signatories sheer out, dividing its power (divide-and-rule = pull bricks from the wall to weaken it).
During the Cold War, NATO became useful as "buck catcher" (John Mearsheimer theory) to be employed against the SU, and after the 1990s it remained a useful "buck catcher" for the hegemony after its purpose actually ended. From the ashes of this disbanded/divided and collapsing NATO, the next non-nuclear little power/proxy like Poland can then be steered by the hegemony, using its off-continental position of power, as political clout and military power.
If the Pentagon/Washington DC decides to leave NATO, who's going to stop them?
Internally, in US domestic politics, there will be enough finger-pointing FOX-news-tier fools showing up screaming "Maybe those Euro-weanies should have just paid the 2%?!?"(fingers pointing/blame game). Any politicians dream-come-true scenario in free societies. The writers of history won't even have to work too hard to cover up the strategy. The narrative writes itself. The deception covers itself, by those who never read the strategy papers, creating a slew of "support" which justifies any pre-conceived strategy.
Rule the world, by division.
If one already knows what games are being played, one can take educated guesses about the future, which will be quite accurate: The weakening of Germany/France, and their economic collapse? Already predicted, because that's what happens if one bases the own POWER on division, and follows the master divider (Washington DC/Pentagon) without questioning. That Europe will collapse because of its weak leadership structures of power, all taking place today as people watch on in surprise or horror? All already predicted, more than 10 years ago. All of these causal effects of own actions (power) and inaction (weakness) have already been discussed by top geostrategists over the past 10 years or so, and available to those who follow these discussions.
What happens if the USA simply adapts/adopts the "Greene Amendment," and simply determines that "NATO is not reliable" (sic.)?
If there's suddenly a lot of pressure from the various and multitude of competing entities of POWER within the USA (lobby groups, strategic think tanks, isolationists, non-interventionalists, plus the pressure of the so-called "street" as public opinion) to leave NATO, who in Europe will make them stay? In grand strategy, the off-continental European power can pull the "Uriah move": after Europeans become set up against each other, then withdraw when the flames fan up, then PIVOT TO ASIA and instigate war here, hoping more willing fools will step forward to "catch the buck" here too.
Note, that "The Pivot to Asia" IS already the strategy.
Set up others, then "pivot" somewhere else (grand strategy).
What makes anybody think somebody like a Mr. "America First"(see footnote) Trump cares about an economic rival to the USA's global hegemony, a united and strong Europe?
Note, that similar to the post-WW2 reality which set in after 1945, the last man standing is also a strategy of power.
If everybody fights and weaken themselves, who "wins"?
In order to see the reality today, we must be honest about reality in the past.
------------
Footnote 1:
Wiki: "The Withdrawal Clause; This means that after 20 years since the signing of the treaty which was in 1949, thus 1969, any member state that wishes to leave just has to inform the United States that it wants to leave, and then after a year it formally leaves."
Footnote 2:
The slogan America First was not coined by Trump, since it goes back to Wilson and WW1 and the starting phase of the US global ambitions, signalled to all interested parties by its declaration of war on Spain in 1898. Obviously, the USA joined WW1 for "cold, hard, American interests" and the intent of gain (economically capture the European "friends" through debt, or the debt trap diplomacy through war expenditures, hidden behind appeals to emotions).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I suggest not counting chickens, before the eggs hatch...
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better.
Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power.
In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, so by 1945 the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." (end of)
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided" (the role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative. "Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...)
Whatever...
If your state or nation is "not at the table," you are "lunch" (Anthony Blinken).
The dividers telling everybody in no uncertain terms, that their interests and even their lives don't count.
*There is no doubt that Washington DC is attempting to repeat this "success" (pov) in the rising powers of Asia.
The strategy can be observed to be implemented in the same way as was set up post-1900 in Europe, but in Europe the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer theory) were Great Britain and France. Today, it is India being used in the same role as France was 100 years ago. In case of a wider war in Asia, as India is set up against China, qui bono if all lose?*
The technique Washington DC employed up to the year 2000, is an almost exact repeat of the technique they used to overpower Europe around the year 1900: DIVIDE AND RULE.
Divide and rule creates all that follows in its wake:
1) The terrorist.
2) The state of terror.
3) The terror state.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I see.... The USA has the most powerful "weapon" on its side: feelings.
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are you referring to Afghanistan?
IMO, Afghanistan is a particularly bad example of how a well-armed, but deeply divided, and not well-educated citizenship can be (and will be) carved up by outside forces if an internal violent conflict arises.
Google The "bandwaggon-effect".
The longer such a struggle lasts, the more likely it is that outside powers would start supporting or arming the various fractions which invariably result from such violent forms of "debate"...
Far better.
A well-educated and tolerant society, which is based on principles like equality and social justice.
So educated, people are less likely to fall for the "tools" used by "evil governments". Tools like "divide and rule".
A recognition of the methods (Google a list of cognitive biases, and a list of fallacious argumentation) by a smart population, coupled with a deep-seated sense of justice (for example, as phrased in the Constitution, and Declaration of Independence) is actually all that is needed to head off that "evil government" before it takes root.
Have you been reading the news lately?
I have....
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wilhelm is often compared to Bismarck.
An interesting "episode" regarding "duplicity" and the way European states interacted at the time, occured in the late-1870s.
Bismarck stepped forward and offered himself as the "honest broker" (Congress of Berlin) to avoid a potential war between the saber-rattling London and St Petersburg, because of the after effects of Russo-Ottoman War of 1877/78 (San Stefano).
As a "thank you" for his efforts as peacemaker and for avoiding war, Bismarck attracted the wrath of the Russian Tzar. Russian anger for getting cheated out of the spoils of this war between Russia and the "evil Ottomans who were oppressing Christians in the Balkans" (the usual widespread "appeal to emotion" for the masses, to cover up the real aims of wars: rule/domination/interests/territory/power/etc., and in this case, St Petersburg heading for the Dardanelles), was suddenly refocussed from London onto Berlin.
Bismarck had triggered a deep feeling in St Petersburg of betrayal: after Russian neutrality had done a large share of "enabling" Bismarck's German unification, St Petersburg now felt that it was obviously time for a "reward" of sorts. Berlin should in return, "enable" further Russian expansion south at the expense of the Ottoman Empire (Dardanelles, the "warm water port"-narrative) and support St Peterburg against British, French or Austrian-Hungarian protests as they realized their long-sought ports outside of the Black Sea ("Greater Bulgaria").
Even worse, while London walked away with a reward (Cypress), Berlin got a crumpled Three Kaiser League and an angry Tzar breathing down their necks. His efforts for securing peace between Russia and Great Britain, resulted in an enhanced risk of war for millions of people in Eastern/Central Europe. All exactly as the "pat our own backs" lords of London (Disraeli/Salisbury) intended. The intention of London throwing their weight into the after-effects of the Russo-Ottoman War, and by supporting the "bad guys" (Ottoman Empire) during this war, had from the outset been to drive a wedge between the "three kaisers", which were perceived to be a threat to the own British Empire.
On analysis, it was a London move to prevent a potentally possible alliance forming out of the existing agreement between the "three kaisers"(Germany/Russia/Austria-Hungary)by driving a wedge between the three.
Is that how London rewarded their peacemakers?
Bismarck: "Once bitten, twice shy..."
The apprentice Wilhelm: "What conclusions can we draw from the above?"
Strangely enough, the same actions by Wilhelm II (1905: the Morrocan "crisis" = avoid a potentially dangerous alliance forming) is interpreted by some historians as having an "evil", or "world conquering" intent, and is widely believed.
So how should we judge the attempt to drive a wedge between potentially dangerous alliances forming? "Evil", or "normal"? Surely it can't be both ;-)
Anyway...
After the Berlin Congress peacekeeping mission, Germany ended up in the vulnerable "middle of Europe", endangered by a 2-front war, with a shattered agreement and potentially without anybody to ally with at all. Fearfull visions of the days of Friedrich must have returned, and only the rapid action by Bismarck averted a disaster. Should Berlin have simply ignored Austria-Hungary's resulting weakness after the Three Kaiser League so rapidly dissolved, Vienna might have simply distanced themselves to look for a "good deal" elsewhere. Russia maybe? A war for Germany on three fronts? His very own agreement between the three empires and kaisers, to keep the peace and which was well within the scope of the "gentleman's agreement" of the Congress of Europe, was almost turned into a complete enciclement of the country whose leaders had stepped forward as "peacemaker".
Another example of the amorality of states.
1
-
1
-
The time is approaching.
For 50 years after 1945 the citizens of the USA have lived the "good life" at the expense of the rest of the world in the immediate post-WW2 years, when the rest of the planet was so weak it could not avoid US institutions/military/NGOs from imposing themselves, and vacuuming off enormous gain from a position of unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL invincibility...
Now, that ratio is down to 30% of the world's wealth.
It's decreasing...
What does the USA look like today? What will it look like when this amount of wealth of the world reaches 20%, or then 10%? When US citizens finally get closer to a "fair share" of the world's resources/wealth, and have to make do with the same amounts as everybody else, they will finally find out what level of psychopathy they have systemically enabled inside, operating from within their OWN country/state. When they can no longer vacuum off the wealth of the world, in an unfair manner (50% for us, the 6% of the planet), they will start finding out what human nature is like.
When the current 4% of the planet, have to make do with 4-5% of the world's wealth and resources as other nations come and take a fairer share of these resources for themselves, the USA will become everything they have always criticized, and finally discover they are just like everybody else.
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
Ruth Bader-Ginsburg: "To Those Accustomed to Privilege Equality feels like Oppression".
In the coming years, Americans are going to start feel soooooo "oppressed" and feel the urge to fight back against "all those jelis peepil" (🤣😂) the 95% of the planet, who somehow had to manage with the other 50% of the wealth/resources for the fifty or sixty years after World War II.
America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this desirable disparity continues.
Set up "patterns" of European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
CONTROL the access to its own POWER.
Keep others either "down" or "out" per "rulings".
No, that isn't a "conspiracy theory".
It is "divide and rule", in different contexts, on different tiers, and in different eras of history.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
CONTROL the resources, which are the limiting factor (NOT "money" which is simply a "means" to divide)
Find volunteers and local ambitious rulers who collaborate, who "dance for money", and the sky is the limit for the dividers...
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) as the template.
The strategy to avoid unity in Eurasia, or to avoid "avoid war" (note: double negative), has been the same for the past 200 years.
Welcome to your tool/fool status, minion...
1
-
1
-
Under the new Trump admin of Neocon imperialists, the USA will pull out of NATO and leave the EU like "Uriah" on the frontlines, to face Russia by themselves.
Read the strategy: it is more than 2,000 years old, but Europeans still don't get that the USA is "not your friend" (loosely quoting Henry Kissinger).
There will be sufficient numbers of Americans cheering and banner waving the resulting "just in isolation"-narrative.
Just like there will always be sufficient numbers of Americans to cheer and banner wave for ANY narrative.
Don't enshrine your own safety to the American people. They are as clueless as everybody else.
The war in the Ukraine is to a great extent a war of Washington DC's own making: to recognize that, what must look at what did NOT happen, which was full Washington DC support for a comprehensive European security agreement (incl. Russia). No amount of cherry picking and finger pointing will deflect from what is the reality: Washington DC/Pentagon/NATO did not WANT it. Now, they will withdraw, and leave Europeans in the crosshairs, because European leaders are far too dumb to realized they've been scammed...again.
Within the frameworks of man-made systems, like democracy and capitalism, the divide-and-rule system of politics allows people to believe whatever they want (within certain limitations), and conclude they are "always right" according to themselves which is why no amount of lying (incl. lying by omitting), hypocrisy, or other generally frowned-upon human flaws, are considered wrong by some people, especially those who are "interest driven."
If a person chooses silence when something bad happens, then wrongful deeds become part of yourself.
Yevgeny Yevtushenko: "When truth is replaced by silence, silence becomes the lie."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer: "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil."
Just remember that lying, deceiving, strategizing snakes and manipulators never consider themselves "evil": they are expert "finger pointers" who start screaming like babies whenever the causes they created, lead to effects. The CAUSES are downplayed or ignored (propaganda machinery), and a lot of energy is spent "finger pointing" at the EFFECTS. They are supported in this strategy of power by hordes of what can only be termed "technically useful idiots/innocents".
Note that this is true about ALL man-made systems and ideologies, so I'm not picking on US/collective Western favorites like democracy or capitalism. It is inherent in all man-made systems, meaning that the age-old wisdoms like "you cannot convince people with logic and reason" are axioms of truth, and therefore the only way to create fair systems of human cooperation which are not exploitive, is by creating a balance of power (the man-made way of copying nature's way of "equilibrium").
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, the followers of Hamaas cheered terrorism...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamaas
They glorified it in order to get their lebensraum, initially protected by the British Empire (after WW1), then turning against the British Empire and killing Brits.
There are always two sides to every story. One side is of EUROPEAN colonial powers, which seized the opportunity of a EUROPEAN war, to expand the own EUROPEAN empires (Britain/France) at the expense of another empire (Ottoman Empire). They set up people here against each other, in the typical way of the strategy of "divide and rule", and so the Levant was "divided" up by "rulings" made by outside powers (aka "imperialism"). Outside mass-immigration leading to mass-dissent, same as mass-immigration ALWAYS leads to mass-dissent, regardless of language, culture, country or ethnicity...
Then there is the other side of the story: The locals were given no voice on the own political future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xochil1621 Search for "hasty generalization". The fact that some Muslims support Hamas does not mean all Muslims support Hamas.
Hamas, just like every single "terrorist" organisation EVER, at any point in history ever, in any geographical location ever, by any religion ever, are always an EFFECT of oppression.
The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they created themselves with own PREVIOUS political actions, as terrorists...
Terrorism/Freedom fighting (POV) is always an "effect" not a "cause."
If you live in the west, then you (personally), or your parents, grandparents or previous generations have never ever ever fought anybody your own leaders have not personally set you up against.
Try me on this one.
Name me the war, incl. this current "War on Terror", and I'll inform you how your own government created it (aka "lay the foundation").
1
-
Teile und herrsche.
Vielleicht ist "Herrschaft" das falsche Wort in Bezug auf die USA, und Europa/Eurasien teilen und "einen Vorteil erlangen", wenn andere kämpfen, kämpfen und dann verlieren, ist näher an dem, was passiert ist.
Um die Jahrhundertwende ("um 1900") machte sich Washington DC daran Europa zu teilen und "zu gewinnen" (aus dem kollektiven europäischen Wahnsinn einen Gewinn ziehen).
Beachten Sie, dass eine solche Politik nicht unbedingt politisch koordiniert werden muss.
Also keine "Ach wieder so nen Verschwörungstheoretiker"-Vorwürfe bitte, lol.
In Bezug auf die Europäer hat sich diese "Teile und hersche"-Politik der USA im Grunde genommen selbst getragen und trägt sich auch heute immer noch quasi von selbst, weil die Europäer auf mehreren Ebenen bereits ausreichend gespalten sind.
Teile und herrsche: Jede Aktion einer ausreichend starken 3. Partei, die gewinnen will, muss einfach jede Form der Einheit in Europa vermeiden oder Anzeichen einer formellen / informellen Vereinbarung zwischen den Europäern im Keim ersticken (der Kalte Krieg war natürlich eine Ausnahme, als die westeuropäische Einheit nützlich war, um dem osteuropäischen Kommunismus / SU / Warschauer Pakt die Stirn zu bieten).
Eine der Schlüsselstrategien bei "Teile und herrsche" besteht darin, beide Seiten in einer Welt voller Rivalen um Dominanz, Einfluss und Märkte zu finanzieren und zu unterstützen.
Einmal geteilt und gespaltet, gibt es keine "einzige Stimme", um einen stärkeren die Stirn zu bieten.
Elemente dieser Methode umfassen:
- Schaffung oder Förderung von Spaltungen ...
- Allianzen/Abmachungen verhindern ...
- Verteilen von Kräften, dass sie den anderen überwältigen
- Unterstützung und Förderung derjenigen, die zur Zusammenarbeit bereit sind
- Förderung von Misstrauen und Feindschaft
Historisch gesehen wurde diese Strategie auf viele verschiedene Arten von Imperien verwendet, die ihre Territorien erweitern wollten.
Es gibt Beispielen für die "Teilung Europas" auf mehreren Ebenen und einen Vorteil für den "Alpha". Diese Beispiele sind nicht Einzelfälle, sondern bilden ein Muster in einem politischen Spiel (in Geopolitik/Grand Strategy = vermeide die Einheit der "Anderen", denn Einheit = Stärke).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
US Congressperson Dan Crenshaw (note his military background, therefore knowledge about strategies) recently stated re. the concept of "rather letting them fight over there" (a reference to the strategy of "the proxy"), after a 40 billion aid package to the Ukraine: “Yeah, because investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea. You should feel the same.” (in a "shame game" with Republicans via Twitter who voted against the aid package).
Yup.
A "great idea" (sic.) to "invest" in the blood of a 3rd party fighting in a war which would have been easy to avoid, and earn some "donations" along the way. What's there not to like?
One might think that this is "anecdotal", but as Napoleon said only the coward won't tell you what he thinks in your face. And there are a ton of cowards in the field of politics.
One might think whatever one wants about Dan Crenshaw, but at least he is open about his disgusting nature.
If anybody ends up in a muddy trench, according to himself, it's not his fault.
Of course, its never the fault of the "system" he's in called "world alpha" either, since it's a free world, and if you're stupid enough to end up in the "muddy trench" fighting so that men like him (or, his "buddies" in "the system") can rake in obscene profits in the rackets they will always vote against avoiding, it's not his issue.
He'll be in church on Sundays, praying the loudest, and he'll be on twitter on Monday, making fun of those not smart enough.
I assume, he'll have his "flock" of supporters, irrelevant of what he utters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@solologanuk Yes, there is only "history".
As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives".
One perspective should not rank higher than another.
Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable".
The reality?
As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people...
1
-
Worst mistake ever?
Thinking "empires" make "best friends"...
Looooooong before WW2, an elitist club of insider London lords he served, had set off to set Europe up for failure...
And they repeated it TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage.
Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Never a "price tag" for own actions and inactions...
Right?
WRONG
Bwits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends".
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"...
And after the war ended?
The "winners" became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers" when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946). Did they ask the London lords who were busy desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not.
Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next.
Hop, hop, hop...into extinction.
Sad...
1
-
Of all the M-A-I-N causes for WW1, three were basically a given factor, while only one could have been politically changed, to avoid the potential scenario of "a great (European) war".
Militarism and imperialism were deep-seated traditional "values" (lol) at the time, and along with the rather new appearance of nationalism, were deeply entrenched beliefs, shared by a large percentage of the populations of all European states.
That was unchangeable.
The alliance system was however flexible.
It could, and should have been changed.
Furthermore, few of the the leaders wanted to accept that colonialism/imperialism was an outdated model, that would have needed to be deeply reformed in a changing world, with the changing realities at the time.
Instead of changing, they steamed full speed ahead, like the Titanic in a region of icebergs, tempting disaster, over confident of their own superiority.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the leadup to WW1, there was another "new power", whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”
Or "maybe they won't notice if we sneak up on them."
Google The American Century for more info...
Washington DC was very good at "biding time" and "keeping a low profile" until they were strong enough to eclipse "the old", and not to care anymore.
With the "leverage" geography gave them (distance from squabbling Europeans), plus a drastically increasing power, as technology shrunk the world, they knew they would just have to wait long enough until the eternally squabbling Europeans had torn themselves to shreds.
Because in the arsenals of M-A-I-N there was another "weapon".
Well-known at the time, and formulated into words by John Quincy Adams: "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country: One is by sword and one is by debt."
Washington DC: If your rivals are making a mistake, don't interrupt them...
1
-
1
-
And while Europe armed itself to the teeth, wasting away their inherence on weapons, others made use of this disunity and were saving their pennies for a rainy day.
US military spending, a fraction of that of Europe.
For their leaders had a plan, greatly aided by their geographical and political isolation (aka "geopolitics")....
In a nutshell, to hang in there long enough, until Europe had torn itself to shreds. And if not, also okay. They were already the undisputed regional power controlling "the new world" of North and South America. A win-win.
A destructive war in Europe = a win for Washington DC/The American Century advocates, and their "hard power" approach.
No destructive war in Europe = a win for the isolationist, with their focus on trade, soft power, etc.
In case of war, then, step in and pick up the (financial) "debris"...in a nutshell:
The American Century.
1
-
Europe's weakness, was the alliance system.
Note: Europe's weakness...
Of all the four M-A-I-N causes for WW1 three were basically a given factor, while only one could have been politically changed, if the desire to do so had existed by European leaders, to avoid the potential scenario of "a great (European) war".
Militarism and imperialism were deep-seated traditional "values" (debatable) at the time, and along with the rather new appearance of nationalism, were deeply entrenched beliefs, shared by a large percentage of the populations of all European states.
These were unchangeable factors, or would need considerable efforts on behalf of entire societies to change.
The alliance system was however flexible.
It could, and should have been changed, at around the turn of the century (around 1900), and only needed a few visionary leaders to do so.
Only London was in a position to offer an alliance, on eye level, with the continent's strongest power, Germany, thereby safeguarding their Empire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, its "divide and rule."
"Divide and rule, weaken and conquer, love and enslave, these are three tenets of politics" ― Bangambiki Habyarimana
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is. Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
Outsiders come and pick favorites, and feed them with bribes and corruption.
The outsiders when make your leaders LOVE the money, and enslave its peoples...
All that is needed is a position of superior international power.
BEWARE AFRICA
Outsiders will return, same as 100 and 200 years ago, to divide your peoples, and rule over the dissent and chaos.
Outsiders WILL come again, to entice your leaders with riches, enslave them with promises of glorious futures, or try to find some "cause" to finance and leverage for own gains (mostly "influence/power" or "financial"). Often, all in parallel.
UNITE
When all are weak, the outsiders step in and "conquer" the local systems, which had mutually exhausted each other...
1
-
The biggest long-term contributing factor for WW1 was the west's attacks on the Ottoman Empire.
Under constant threat of attack at the fringes (Libya, Egypt, Balkans, etc.), the Ottomans were looking for a protector in Europe and found one in Wilhelm II.
A strong alliance would have protected the Ottoman Empire from further western aggression.
Paris and St. Petersburg wanted to avoid this, at all costs...
For a close alliance between Berlin-Vienna-Budapest-Constantinople to become effective, land access was a prequisite...
Pesky Serbia was in the way, and gave Vienna a perfect pretext for war, by supporting a terrorist organisation (The Black Hand).
Just imagine, if the Ottoman Empire had simply been left alone, in peace, to develop or fall apart naturally...
As always, the vultures of history cause wars by their own actions.
1
-
1
-
Die größte Gefahr für die Welt sind ideologisch indoktrinierte Systeme, randvoll mit „nützlichen Idioten“, die schon immer die Welt beherrschen wollten.
Suchen Sie in einem Wörterbuch nach dem Begriff „Ideologie“.
Es handelt sich um ein System von Ideen und Idealen, insbesondere um eines, das die Grundlage wirtschaftlicher oder politischer Theorie und Politik bildet.
ALLES davon braucht enorme Unterstützung, um aus der theoretischen Ebene der Dinge auszubrechen, hin zu einer real existierenden Form von MACHT.
Es ist leicht, zum Werkzeug von Ideologen zu werden.
Diese Machthaber predigen aus ihren ideologischen „Blasen“, die „Fern-Seher“ genannt werden, und Millionen verneigen sich vor ihnen, und diese Machthaber haben Millionen dazu gebracht, zu glauben, sie sollten für ihre Ideologie lügen und töten und zu ideologisch indoktrinierten Kriegern werden. Wenn die Ideologie, die sie offen und stolz zur Schau stellen, Millionen tötet, sagen ihre Anführer, dass sich der Tod von 500.000 Kindern „gelohnt“ habe (Madeleine Albright), und dass dies überhaupt keine Auswirkungen habe. Millionen schauen auf solche Todesfälle und zucken nicht einmal mit der Wimper. Sie führen ihr Leben weiter. Millionen jubeln und schätzen ihre Ideologen und lieben Führer. Die Ideologie, für die ihre ideologisch indoktrinierten Anführer offen erklären, dass sie Soldaten zum Töten schicken sollten, ist Demokratie in Verbindung mit Korporatismus, und der Slogan, den sie seit dem Ersten Weltkrieg skandieren, lautet: „Machen Sie die Welt sicher für die Demokratie“. Das größte Beispiel für Doublespeak (George Orwell) aller Zeiten: Eigentlich war es immer die Absicht, „die Welt für US Grosskonzerne sicher zu machen“, und andere Regierungen zu unterwerfen, wie Smedley-Butler bereits vor 100 Jahren verriet.
Seltsam, dass die Bibel, die diesen Ideologen am Herzen liegt, nicht sagt, dass man „lügen, stehlen und töten“ solle, sondern dass ihre Anführer sie auffordern, zu töten, um die Demokratie zu verbreiten.
Eines dieser Axiome muss falsch sein.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The question posed to Asians (mainly Chinese and Indians/citizens within these borders) remains the same as during the era of imperialism.
The obfuscators and dividers will use the same techniques in reasoning as they use in politics: they will "hop around" on criteria, causing dissention in debates on the micro level (society), in the same way the power players "hop around" on entire countries/governments/capital cities/key politicians in geopolitics on the macro level...
The technique of "divide and rule"...
Hop over here, hop over there, whatever standpoint brings the own short-term advantage, because THE POWER has the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of not having to suffer consequences from it's own actions.
The question posed to all Asians remains.
Whether they can see that they are in the same positions they were in 200 and 300 years ago.
The dividers come with "promises" which they mostly don't intend keeping, or offer "treaties" (in which these dividers themselves hold the geographical advantage of distance), make all kinds of excuses why the dividers don't keep their promises, or why the dividers don't suffer the same percentage of harmfull effects in times of crisis/war as the "chosen ones". These promises are very enticing to power players, and offer the prospect of glory and achievement to the side the promises are made to...
Anthony Blinken making some Indians FEEL***(see footnote) very proud with repeated offers of NATO membership, just like previous US admins made such promises to the Ukriane, which no doubt made many Ukrainians FEEL very proud, and then the dividers with the geographical advantage, subsequently citing all kinds of "difficulties" why such "pwomises" then cannot be effected in a short timespan.
Meanwhile, exposing the "Ukraine"/proxy to extreme danger as the feet were dragged and dragged and dragged...
Of course, in the game called divide and rule, it is not the fact THAT it is a ridiculous offer, in view of recent events in the Ukraine exposing the danger of such folly, but rather the fact THAT such an offer is repeated. The fact THAT the offer is on the table, already causes mistrust/dissention amongst ASIAN neighbors.
Of course, if India refuses, the divider (of Asia), Washington DC can simply go to China and "promise Taiwan" to Beijing (signed away) in return for a deal, to surround Russia. The potential for "divide and rule" rests on the side with the geographical advantage, as long as the targets for division do not unite, specifically with a comprehensive Asian security agreement.
The question to Asians remains the same.
What are they going to do to create a SINGLE HEGEMONY (alliance) in East Asia, in order to speak with a united voice, against the POWER of division.
BRICS is not enough.
Any other deal or treaty, or even the "UN's" laws and the "rules based order" cannot stand up to the POWER of divide and rule.
It needs a comprehensive security agreement for all of those in the FRACTURE ZONE 4 (stretching from North Pole, via Japan, Taiwan, through Thailand, the Indian subcontinent, towards the Middle East).
If no comprehensive security agreement is achieved, mutually beneficial for all, then simply wait for history to return ("rhyme")...
Or are Indian leaders like... first they came for Russia, but I did not care because I was not Russian. Then they came for China, but I did not care because I was not Chinese, and even saw an advantage for myself (economy) if China got "carved up" and weakened...
Indian leaders: It'll be great, if WE can CONTROL the WATER flowing into China, from Tibet...such tempting "offers" and promises...
"Around 1900" repeating for Tibet.
Finally though, if everything is burning, divided, in quagmire of revolution and war, and Asia the "new Middle East" (as unfolded after the 1882 British invasion, followed up closely by "Sir Lawrance the divider ofArabs"), finger pointing, and harsh language in the neighboring state, then who will speak up for India when the dividers come for you?
DESIRABLE OUTCOME in any divide and rule system: The dividers will subsequently have the "upper hand/higher ground" (leverage) of POWER for all future negotiations with the resulting "statelets".
The secret towards more Indian "power" lies in the continued "power" of its neighbors, not these neighbors' weakness.
* The appeal to emotion
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leviashanken2506 Your response is a common fallacy in reasoning, generally termed NIMBY (not in my backyard), which basically states that "if something happens to somebody over there, far away, I WILL pass judgement, and I'm perfectly fine with what everybody else around me, or my leader says....BUT should I risk becoming a victim of my OWN logic, I will resist."
Answer to your NIMBY-logic: Why would "they" (the "outgroup"/Palestinians) simply go somewhere else, if they were BORN in these lands?
It would be as if (at the same time/from 1917) Roma/Sinti from all over the world suddenly settled in YOUR town/rural area/state, with a plan to found an own state there. They have the "approval" of the international community, and financed by rich Roma/Sinti from all over the world, with the "justification" that they (1) have always lived in your town/state, and (2) they constituted a persecuted group (3) just went through the Holocaust, where many were murdered (§§§footnote), and (4) they did not have any other state of their own they could go to.
Then, when there is resistance from you and your neighbors, it is answered by the rhetoric that "if the locals don't like it, these locals who don't like it can be resettled in the neighboring states" because a) there are over 50 other "white" towns/rural areas/states, and b) there are many other Christian states, but the persecuted Roma/Sinti don't have one.
Everybody will now point the finger at YOU and your neighbors and scream: "How dare you be so cruel and heartless?!!?"
The locals (now YOU) shouldn't act like that, and all these locals are of course welcome to stay if they are nice and well-behaved, but not if they have recently moved in from elsewhere in the surrounding (say, one of your friends from another city or state). If that is the case, they are all "illegals" and must move back to where they lived before. Also, the locals have to adapt to the new customs and laws such as outsiders/immigrants' criminal law, customs, or holidays, etc...
So?
Sound great?
It's always easy to judge others when you're not facing the same situation, and the really sad thing is, this NIMBY principle is already all over the Bible as moral reasoning, with examples like "put yourself in the shoes", or "looking for splinters in the eyes of brothers", etc.
§§§footnote
I suggest researching this. This is true, since it was not ONLY Jwes who suffered during the Holocaust.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelwarenycia7588 Yes you are of course 100% correct.
All "theory" comes to an end the minute one is physically attacked. Then, one must defend oneself in first line, and leave the theory for later.
It is the same as when you're out in street, and guy storms you with a knife: of course, nobody asks whether this attacker had a difficult childhood, or whether he is short of money, or has hungry kids to feed.
There is "right" and "wrong", and Russia is plain wrong, regardless of all other reasoning.
Mearsheimer would also do the same, if mexico attacked the USA, regardless of how he theorizes about other regions of the planet.
Yes, a lot of South Africans left SA in the 1990s, but I personally left a lot earlier, during the early-1980s, because I wanted to travel, and just got stuck in Europe, where I live now. Yes, I'm on the old side :-)
I think the theory of "divide and rule" and Mearsheimer's "buckpassers/buck catchers and bloodletting wars"-theory has more to do with the leadup to crises and wars, and if these conditions can't be resolved before, then the guns start firing, and the "sword must decide".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
..
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join up...
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Galatians 6:7 “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
The funny thing about the divide-and-rule world, is that many tell you what the problem is, but very few state how to solve it. The divide-and-rule/conquer strategy is intact.
It is practically as old as modern civilization, and has never been defeated.
Those with true power will do their utmost to ensure that the divide-and-rule system we live in today, will control for all times via what Stephen Janis describes as a desirable "conflict environment." Why? Because, "... after all, the past is our only real guide to the future ... a map by which we can navigate." - Michael Mandelbaum
"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth." ― Albert Einstein
Do not trust the people who stand most to gain by dividing everybody else, top down.
"When two brothers are busy fighting, an evil man can easily attack and rob their poor mother. Mankind should always stay united, standing shoulder to shoulder so evil can never cheat and divide them." ― Suzy Kassem
If not, they will take from your manifest rights, and add to theirs.
"Divide and rule, the politician cries; Unite and lead, is watchword of the wise." ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
The solution: create a balance of power, and stand up to the "dividers" and their minions.
"The rich ruling class has used tribalism, a primitive caveman instinct, to their advantage since the beginning of time. They use it to divide and conquer us. They drive wedges between us peasants and make us fight each other, so we won’t rise up against our rulers and fight them. You can observe the same old trick everywhere in America today... That doesn’t just happen all by itself. There are always voices instigating these fights." ― Oliver Markus Malloy
Scale it up or down, to any tier of human interaction, specifically where "gain" is the intention.
Hudson: "Five, four, three, - We're on an express elevator to hell, going down..."
Enjoy the ride.
1
-
AIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside powers can "surf in and skim off the profits". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialsim, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS
European peoples are to daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that that end up thinking everything they do is justified...
Has your nation, or your leader been "chosen as a favorite son"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have aside, or settle them fast, don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme, and actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU, for the gain of the outside Western Powers...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The discussion topic is too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture. Simply a look at a small pixel of the larger image, and therefore too "compartmentalized".
Europe lost its top tier position a long time ago, as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, ALL Europeans lost.
WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and Great Britain off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted.
WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that Atlanticists (the naval powers) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination.
In the end ALL Europeans lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After the Cold War this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, as new frontierlands to systemically convert, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards.
Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@reginaldmcnab3265 Hitler also said, and this is not verbatim but only loosely quoted, that "how could GB and France not know what my aim is", because he had proclaimed it in Mein Kampf: his aim was to get Lebensraum for the German people, and that lay in the east.
Poland could either bow down and submit, and join the Axis (and maybe gain a little bit for themselves as "friends"), or be totally destroyed and become a part of the lebensraum.
In order to join the Axis, Poland would have to completely abondon GB/France as "allies" (see Limitrophe States).
In 1939 Poland was "between the Devil and the deep blue sea", because they could either sacrifice themselves for uncaring "empires" (GB/France), or get screwed over by the Nazis (like Czechoslovakia was), in case they refused to join the Axis fully, and bleed in a war against the commies.
1
-
It far worse than this.
This is just a minute pixel within the entire messed-up big picture...
You will have to figure it out yourself.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a noun, and a defined term.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Like the ideology of democracy.
YES, believe it or not, what YOU believe in, is an ideology.
Similar to this concept are systems of beliefs, systems of ideas, and systems of ideals.
ALL of these, need "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
They need you, yes, YOU, to lie, and kill, so they can steal in the background, and YOU, yes, "you", are not better that anybody else on this planet if you lie, and kill for an ideology.
These dumbed down masses reveal themselves by the way the speak...
They are all tools, of others.
These power players preach from their "boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy".
Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of them, must be wrong.
Think it through, and my appeal to you: do not become their "dumb, stupid, animal" they can order around, so they can get filthy rich themselves.
When one criticizes an ideologue's ideology, they expose their true nature.
1
-
I see.... The USA has the most powerful "weapon" on its side: feelings.
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Good theory, but IMO it goes even deeper than that, and goes back to the roots of how the extremes of every society (far left and far right) see the world, and intend to gain power whilst representing minority opinions: by the strategy of divide and rule.
The answer lies in the dichotomy between the extremes, and the fact that the Nazis refused compromise, or refused to submit to a higher order, both on the domestic and international level. Evidence for this is Hitler famously stating to Chamberlain that Munich was the first time he ever compromised.
Having used the strategy of "divide and rule/conquer" to gain power, meant they were obviously realistic enough to recognoze if it was being "played" in the opposite direction:
It was
1) either be the divider (of all others), or become divided by somebody else
2) either be the supreme ruler (of all others), or become ruled by somebody else
Why didn't Nazi Germany just surrender?
The political extremes don't surrender, because the extremes cannot compromise, because it would mean invalidating the entire ideology.
The Nazi all or nothing principle, in a nutshell: you are either for us, or against us ("no neutrality possible"), are "free" (and submit to our rules) or in a camp, and if you're not my "friend" (and submit) you are my enemy. My/Nazi/ingroup books survive, your/outgroup books are burnt. There is either "peace" (according to Nazi conditions) or war and if there is war, it is either we/ingroup totally win, or "we/ingroup" totally lose. If we win, it's either "gleichschaltung" (loser adapts and bows down) or "ausradieren" (wiped off the map). If the ingroup cannot win, and be the alpha, then they would have to get burried. More evidence of all this in Hitler's own statement in 1945 that the German Volk betrayed him with their weakness, and would have to bow down to the winners.
Basically everything on any tier of society or international relations was a dichotomy of the extremes, with no middle road or compromise.
The above is pretty similar for all ideologies who submit to "all or nothing principles".
1
-
European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonial ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon. These citizens, usually around 50% of entire populations, suffer directly ("heating or eating"), or indirectly (soaring inflation), these are all "effects," not to be confused with "causes" (see concept of retrocausality, one of the most easilily misused ways to skew a timeline of events).
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade.
Today, the people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages.
In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era instruments of POWER), but cannot be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As wars get closer to the own borders, we will witness a return of the "screamers" as well as "experts" (lol) on the "topic" of psychohistory (search for the key word "Psychohistory").
The intention behind such "psychohistory" is however simply yet another "finger pointing" device, aimed to direct the attention elsewhere, and deflect the attention of the average citizen towards the "other side". The implication is that it is only and always, ever and ever "the other side" who are led by "psychos".
An exact science, however is to analyze all leaders, even the own, and always question the means and strategies they use to achieve gain.
If one is neutral, and does that, a completely different picture emerges.
The reality is, that the average citizen and even experts can hardly ever pinpoint the true "psycho", since a real psycho is a chameleon, who blends into any and every system by mirroring or mimicking what they witness around them as "normal behaviour". In almost all cases a psycho is rounded up, say a mass-murderer, and neighbors are asked whether they have ever noticed anything odd, the answer is invariably along the lines of "he was always sooooo nice/helpful/smiling/etc."
Fact remains, the true "psycho" cannot be spottted by average citizens.
The true psycho blends in.
The true pscycho mimics your behaviour, but feels nothing.
The true psycho is a "natural manipulator" and habitual liar who captures the average citizen in systems of gain (pyramidically shaped systems of power).
The true psycho is attracted by "power" like a moth to the flame.
The true psychos therefore infest systems of the biggest potential gain, including our revered democracy/capitalism to the tune of a "<20%" saturation rate, and are allowed to "play" by the systems of gain, and their gatekeepers...
Hypocrites, narcissistic behaviour, bullying, and Machiavellianism might cause unease in the overwhelming number of good people in every society, but these good people are usually not the ones "gatekeeping" (also a bully tactic) the most influencial political/corporate job openings, which are not voted for by the populations of "Western-style"-democracies, or in corporations which then proceed to buy their own favorable laws (lobbying, influence) and buy corruptable politicians in the "legalized bribes"-systems they had previously lobbied for...
Being openly hypocritical and deceptive is a "rule" considered a virtue, in some circles of power.
Calling these people out in an effort of shaming is pointless, since they have no shame.
Footnotes/key words for further research:
* 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
* Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
* The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
* Dr. Namie's research concerneing the 4 bully types of human being
Since all human systems of gain (incl. politics and capitalism) are made up of human beings, the above research can be scaled up to any tier, right up to the level of states/empires.
Those who justify (almost) everything which happened in the past (a divide and rule world), will justify the present.
Because the "divide and rule"-world never ended...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Reap as you sow counts for all.
The price for a "flattened Germany" would be paid after WW2.
Of course, Germany as a "power", benefited the British Empire.
With this "power" wiped out, Empire became indefensible.
Empire's "fwiends"?
Of course, they had their own agendas.
Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
[Google: The American_Century]
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
[britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
[Google: Operation_Unthinkable 1944]
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
Stalin quickly and instinctively figured out that Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
[Google: Percentages_agreement Churchill and Stalin]
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. Here's Greece. I'll take the rest, including your friends Poland 100%. What are you going to do about it?"
Sow "more than the measure", then "reap" the demise of influence, and your "empire"...
1
-
@paulreed6822 The question why it took GB 7 years after WW2, to carry out their 1st nuclear test, even though the technology had already been developed by international scientist (also British) before 1945.
Because its the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and "cute Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world really works...
Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world "you shall not have nuclear weapons!"
[Google how that unfolded with: "history/british-nuclear-program]
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
1945 Washington DC: "If you want nukes, develop them yourself. In the meantime, I'll dismantle your empire. What are you going to do about it?"
That's how leverage works.
After WW2, GB was flat broke. Washington wouldn't give it nuclear technology to defend their empire.
Flat broke and unable to defend their own sphere of influence....and down went the British Empire...
1
-
1
-
@patriciabrenner9216 Yes.
Agreed.
It was fine.
It was "fine" how British leaders bombed the British Empire into ruin.
Apparently, sending "bbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"-Lancs around to "flatten Germany", was a too expensive burden for a failing empire to shoulder...
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
Sorreeee. That's what happens when you make the wrong "fwiends".
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Nice exchange.
The current generation of kiddies can chant "Bomber Harris do it again" for all eternity.
It only cost the Brits their Empire...
Seems like a fair deal.
Very "fine" indeed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Versailles had no real winners.
Its influence and the precedents it set, would determine the mindset of millions for years to come....
There were only short term winners.
In the long term, those who "tried to defend everything, defended nothing" (Friedrich the Great)
For GB and the Empire everything seemed great. A powerful adversary wiped off the map. All foreseeable dangers to Empire gone.
Or, so the plan...
British instincts were almost dictated by the fear of the unknown. That eternal "what if"...
To counter that, they created policies for the continent...
[Google: britannia/balance-of-power]
Do you want to know the real reason why there was so much war and hatred in Central Europe?
It was because the British feared ONLY for the British Empire, and therefore proposed "balancing" the power in Europe. That way, the people of Central Europe would be busy squabling with each other, and their Empire would be safe.
As long as Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Russia were enemies, there was less danger to the British Empire.
The strategy of dividing potential opposition, is known as "divide and rule". The British also used this method in their colonies. They would get the people in their colonies to fight each other, and then it would be easier to rule with less soldiers.
[Google: Divide_and_rule]
The British used human beings as "tools" for "balancing" Russia and Germany, and when it failed they did nothing for Czechoslovakia and Poland.
In end effect, those who stood up for Empire "defended nothing", because Empire was already in decline in a changing world of nationalism, and only a fool would have tried to cling to "the good ol' days"...
[Obviously, a "pound block of equals" was the best long term strategy, but the world was not ready for "weany libruls" willing to give a few points :-)]
Anyway. Versailles.
Apparently it was ok to have own "little dictators" who who wanted to rule the world, but forgot that the world was too big to rule and HAD to be shared to ensure LONG TERM stability.
Two, were not invited.....
Two were dissed...
One went home cross the ocean to face ridicule...
And many were standing at the door, hoping for a better world....
Two thirds of the planet, it seems, were not really a part of the brave new world which was being established to "end all wars".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The last time the USA gained big time, was after the USA had played its own still relatively small part in setting up Imperialist Europe for failure 100 years ago, starting around 1900 in small steps, using the divide and rule technique of power and from a position of unassailable geographical favor (the geographical reality can also be stated using other words, such as "competing from advantageous ground"/RAND Report, 2019).
How are American leaders going to get Eurasian states/countries, incl. their own "friends" in the EU, and the rising East Asian part of BRICS, to go "down" again so the good times of "50% wealth for us" (post-WW2 strategy/McKennan) can continue? How can the USA cobtinue to attract and rake in all the runaway talent from everywhere else as these regions are destroyed by crises and war (brain drain), and as these wars are funded by the post-1913 fiat currency dollar hegemony? (see footnote)
How can US leadership avoid having to deal with the OWN divided-and-ruled population when they can no longer be pacified by throwing heaps of luxury into their laps, getting successively disgruntled as the amount of afforded wealth is decreasing yearly, and ever-more unevenly siphoned off within the own system (1% owning 50% of wealth in the USA). How to keep everybody else on the planet "exhausted" and "extended," all the while pretending to be friends?
Note that the current rising anger within the USA is no longer ground on moral inequalities, such as the large uprisings in the 1960s, and 1970s. The current anger on the the streets, is overwhelming carried by a massive inequality within the OWN country, with the mega-rich encroaching on the own small amounts of acquired wealth in ever more outrageous and openly advocated and politically backed corporate steps. These private equity vultures that were once set loose on the entire planet, are now coming "home to roost"...
Obviously, unlike the post-WW2 "good ol' days" there is not enough to pass around anymore, as other nations rise and start demanding a fairer share of the world's resources.
What are they going to do?
Answer: They are already doing it. Implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power, both abroad as well as over the own people, same as ever since they existed.*
footnote
Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money = "control" the resources. It doesn't need a ton of books to explain what money is. Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money/currency = "control" the resources. There. Did it in twenty seconds 😂
That is the system YOU cheer for as "best that can be done."
"If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu," February 17th 2024, US Secretary of State Blinken. If you don't got the money honey, YOU are going to be eaten, if YOU don't unite with your neighbors, regardless of their class, religious beliefs, race or ethnity, place of birth, language, culture or other easily implemented "divides" such as "lines drawn on a map" which are often politically exploited to the gain of the "top tiers."
Money is a vehicle to allocate resources. It's the physical resources which are limited, and who controls the flow of printable money, controls the flow of resources.
1
-
The USA/collective West is a divide-and-rule Mecca for the mega-rich.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Not Buy: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," buy 2nd hand quality products, or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just "not buy" ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to end the global chaos caused by forever wars? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join "not buy", because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, nothing has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by "not buying" all big brands. Thank you Croatia for showing the way it could be done (see "DANAS"). Start "not buying" them all. Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage.
Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Never a "price tag" for own actions and inactions...
Right?
WRONG
Bwits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: *"Empires" don't have "friends".
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"...
And after the war ended?
They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946).
Did they ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not.
Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next.
Hop, hop, hop...into extinction.
Sad...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Crises and wars is what one gets if one wants to rip/deceive a "sphere of influence" out of the hands of a rival.
WW1 came about because Imperialist Russia wanted to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence out of the hands of" Austria-Hungary.
It "started" with a slug-out between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, and "ended" in WW1.
WW2 came about because of Hitler/Nazi Germany and Stalin/the SU wanting to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence out of the hands of" the West/empires (GB/France)".
It "started" with a slug-out between Germany and Poland, and "ended" in WW2.
The War in the Ukraine came about because the USA/West/NATO wanted to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence" out of the hands of Russia.
It "started" with a slug-out between the Ukraine and pro-Russian seperatists proxies (fueled by the USA/West/NATO), and will end in a "2nd Cold War" (hopefully "only" a "cold war").
An eternal game...
Friends one day, enemies the next, friends one day, enemies the next, friends one day, enemies the next...
Why bother trying to read "25,000 books" (Christopher Clark) only about a specific topic, say WW1?
Why philosophize endlessly about whether it is "one left arm" or "only one ball" which "starts wars", if one can simply point at "greed" or the desire to "rule" over others?
Irrelevant of the context and time (truisms). Leaders "defending the indefensible" will always be around.
"Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible – there will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain." - 06/09/2022 Rep. Elizabeth Cheney (R) Wyoming
They were there 100 years ago, and they were there 20 years ago when war could have been avoided by simply being honorable and stopping the ongoing process of "sphere of influence" stealing, using every trick in the book to disguise their actions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
David Ben-Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
“Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. … Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice.”
— David Ben Gurion. Quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan’s “Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.
“We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return.”
David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar’s Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.
Ben Gurion also warned in 1948: Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes: “The old will die and the young will forget.”
“We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai.”
David Ben-Gurion May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, a Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.
“If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.”
Ben-Gurion (Quoted on pp 855-56 in Shabtai Teveth’s Ben-Gurion in a slightly different translation).
“It’s not a matter of maintaining the status quo. We have to create a dynamic state, oriented towards expansion.” –Ben Gurion
1
-
1
-
It "started" quite innocently, way before WW2.
With a London policy.
I'm sure the British population and the inhabitants of Empire would have been happy if their toffs hadn't made Germany the enemy as a default setting.
The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting...
[britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power]
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.
It came first before all other considerations.
It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding
1) alliances
2) treaties (or no treaties)
3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord)
4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle)
5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint)
6) when to engage in arms races
7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences
Go over your history, and see its handwriting all around...
Enjoy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bubbalong7646 Polls are not accurate, because around 20% of voters are "swing voters" and another 20-30% are so-called "single issue voters", in other words....indecisive.
Anyway, so much for objective analyses.
What have we learnt about you so far, except that you are a proven liar, just like your hero?
Hmmmm, a self-proclaimed "13-year old" who's been to university and Vietnam? Weird...
But, I guess like your hero, lying comes easy to you.
My diagnosis?
You bow to authority, have weak and insecure personality traits, and suck up to positions of power, and seek out jobs in typical hierarchical organisations...
Correct? How am I doing so far?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Yes, you bring a gift: the survival of the British Empire.
The old "Wilhelm wanted to destroy the British Empire" is at best a self-fulfulling prophecy....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy
...at worst a lie.
Wilhelm had no such intentions.
In fact, if he (or any German leader at the time during the late-19th Century) had really wanted to do that, they could have done that...
Up to the late-1900th/early-20th century, Russia was aggressively expansive, clashing with the British Empire.
St Petersburg would have loved an alliance with common goals with Berlin, in order for them to achieve their geopolitical goals. German leaders refused. St Petersburg would have loved to crush the Ottoman Empire, and thereby clash with GB, and take the Dardanelles (free access to the Med).
Also to eclipse British interests in the ME (Persia, etc.), see "The Great Game".
For that, a strong alliance with Berlin would have been a prerequisite.
Together, they could have "ruled the world", if only Berlin were willing to "sell off" Vienna, and crush the French in the west...
Together, St Petersburg and Berlin sat on the "pivot" of the world, and nothing could have stopped them from dominating Europe and Asia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
Neither Bismarck nor Wilhelm II were interested.
I assume that would make them both very popular in the UK...for "saving the British Empire" :-)
But, Berlin was not interested in the dubious privilege of eternal war that comes with ruling the world.
1
-
@bolivar2153 Why are you lying "by omission" about the Haldane Mission"?
Berlin knew exactly what London would do in case of a war on the continent.
They admitted it themselves, or one could say had been tricked into admitting it themselves during the Haldane Mission in 1912.
Most English books or websites simply conclude a very simplistic "Haldane went to try and find a solution for the Naval Arms race, but the...ahem...'nasty arrogant Krauts' refused", or something like that....lmfao "British history"...
Berlin wanted London to recognize that it had a right to defend itself from an unprovoked attack.
I'll add a German link, because this part is often "omitted" from English speaking sites, twisting the perception of readers...
Berlin suggested (amongst other) "British neutrality in case of a war [on the continent] in which Germany could not be seen as the aggressor" [exact translation of the request]
Note, that this was a kind request to London, to stay out of it, if Germany is attacked without causing/provoking an attack herself (obviously, even if not mentioned, by Russia and France). In other words, the purest form of self-defense imaginable.
GB refused.
https://historyretros.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/haldane-mission-in-berlin/
In return Berlin offered to substantially reduce the Navy. GB refused, because London knew that Germany could not possibly bear the financial strain of competing with the massive French and Russian land forces re-armament, and would have to reduce her naval expenses anyway. Germany needed to free resources to strengthen the army, to counter French/Russian aggressive re-arming, meaning less ships could be financed.
GB had already "won" the Naval Arms race, because Germany would have to counter the aggressively re-arming French/Russian militaries.
It was after the failure of this meeting, that Berlin accepted the fact that whatever the cause of a war, GB would be the enemy. There was no other way to interpret the British stance in 1912.
Two wrongs, never make "a right".
Also, it doesn't really matter how one justifies London's stance, because London's stance on having the "God given right" to "balance powers" on the continent without compromise, or negotiations, lead to the failure of Europe as "the centre of world power".
Also, it played a large role in the fall of the British Empire itself.
The idea of the elites to "balance powers" in order to avoid wars, had morphed into an arrogant one-sided affair based on the imperialist rivalry. It was not decided "in concert" as in 1815, but simply dictated to Europe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 A few quotes does not change the facts.
Here are the facts, as anybody can discover for himself: as a general rule, navies are divided into certain categories...
Also, as a general rule, "global reach" can only be achieved by a Blue Water Navy...
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy
...as advocated by Mahan, and that is as true today as it was in 1850, 1900, or 1950.
No blue water navy = no global reach
The global reach achieved by a Blue Water Navy is composed of two elements.
1) the design of the ships themselves
2) logistics / naval bases
As to point 1 and 2.
If one studies the design of the German ships themselves, and German naval bases, one can only reach one conclusion.
Before WW1 there were never any plans for "global reach", i.e. any attempt to "rule the world" as often claimed.
As design criteria, one can simply look at the drawing (flared or raked bow = Blue Water Navy) and a few statistics like size, range, and livability.
The design elements of ships (true even today) are divided into two main criteria : offensive elements (firepower, speed and seakeeping) vs. defensive elements (armor protection, nr. of watertight compartments, sturdy construction).
Nations which desire "global reach", built fast, large, high firepower, long ranged, seaworthy vessels, supported by a dense network of naval bases, and international ports (either by alliance, or by own construction) supported by large fleets of tankers, repair ships, and replenishment ships.
Less emphasis is placed on armour, and much more on speed and range.
Nations which wish to concentrate on the own doorstep, built smaller, sturdier, ships with smaller caliber guns and more/thicker armor, and with with stubby bows (seakeeping less important, since designed for coastal waters).
In short, one can gather information about the policies of a nation, by merely looking at the design of its weapons. And this is as true for tanks as it is for ships...
A nation that built the S-tank (Sweden) had no desire to "rule the world" :-)
As for the design of the the Imperial German Navy's ships....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Imperial_German_Navy
....and you can see that from the destroyers (called "torpedo boats" right through to the big gun battleships, the design criteria fits that of the coast defense navy (today called "Green and Brown Water Navies"). You don't have to look at all of them, but maybe click on a few links and look at the specifications, and filter it with the information above.
As for the numbers of units built, that was a result of the alliance system. As the Russians found out at Tsushima, there was no point sending a large fleet halfway around the world, if the ships and crews were going to arrive in bad shape...
(No recreational facilities, docks, replenishment, etc.)
Simply having a lot of ships, doesn't imply wishing to "rule the world".
To conclude: any accusations of Germany trying to "steal something from the British Empire", or "trying to overpower the Royal Navy" or "threatening GB" are at best misconceptions, at worst straight out lies....
Germany has ports in the North Sea, and every right to protect these.
Your throwing in "North Sea" doesn't answer my question.
So I'll answer it myself: The newly united Germany built a navy to protect her shores/coastal towns and cities.
That fact is proven by the design of the ships themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Where does such misconception of "Germany wanting war" or "Wilhelm wanted to rule Europe", or variations of that come from?
Do you have any evidence for such a plan/scheme/strategy/etc?
Obviously, if this was true, it would have a name, or someone who advocated it.
So who or what was it?
Wilhelm was the "Trump" of that era, no arguments there, but he wasn't a warmonger.
He was an idiot who put his foot in his mouth all the time, but nothing else.
Also, scroll up to my comment starting with Yes, you bring a gift: the survival of the British Empire.
If German leaders had wanted to rule Europe, or "rule the world", they could have done so.
1
-
@bolivar2153 We've already discussed this elsewhere.
Yes, Berlin had little direct interest in Balkan affairs.
Rather, "by proxy", via Vienna...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93German_alliance
Pre-WW1 Russia used (or rather misused) the new ambitious Balkan state Serbia as a strategic barrier, to avoid such an alliance between Berlin and Constantinople becoming effective (by disrupting river and rail connections).
Of course the existing alliance system was lopsided.
As soon as London joined Paris/St Petersburg, the Central Powers were at a strategic disadvantage.
An alliance between Berlin, Vienna, Budapest, and Constantinople would have rectified the existing imbalance, making a war of aggression by Paris and St Petersburg on the Central Powers less likely.
That was the intention.
If Serbia didn't want war, maybe they should have kept their house clean, and swept out the subversive elements from their government.
The old "poor little Serbia" is bs apologia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Ah, the "poor little (sovereign) nations"...
Spare me the snot and tears lecture.
More like the "hypocrisy of history"...
At the time, all major powers continued their ambitions of territorial expansion at the cost of minor sovereign states.
France attacked Siam, with a subsequent "little bit of land grabbing" (Laos) in 1893.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Siamese_War
...or....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agadir_Crisis
Apparently, oh so righteous France didn't care much about the sovereignty of "little nations" when it came to expanding an own sphere of influence...
WIlhelm II who stood up for the "little nation" here (obviously, and as always in history with an own ulterior motive) was labeled the "bad guy".
Elsewhere, the USA eclipsed and annexed the "little nation" called the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1898, and invaded and carved up Colombia when it wanted to build its Panama Canal...
https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/gp/17661.htm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_Panama_from_Colombia
Of course, the locals were absolutely enchanted...
Constant British attempts to annex the internationally recognized Boer Republics because of own geopolitical ambitions...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Boer_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War
Of course, Wilhelm II, again "standing up for the little nation" was the "bad guy"...go figure...
Apparently, the sovereignty of little nations wasn't a big deal, while one was doing the invasions, regime change, or wars oneself:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/albion/article/methods-of-barbarism-and-the-rights-of-small-nations-war-propaganda-and-british-pluralism/E9B59C4BAC89A7859AB33D8901F2C406#
As always, it only becomes "an issue" when one "rules the world" and the roles are reversed....
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/661734.shtml
In the endless lists of crises, wars, military conquests, false flags, intrigues, and "expeditions" by warlike private companies, all with the objective of expanding the own sphere of influence, Wilhelm II's Germany must have seemed like a haven for pacifists to a neutral observer of history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1800%E2%80%9399
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1900%E2%80%9344
Death was lavishly sown in return for own gain.
But yeah...
"Poor Serbia".
No, I would not have fought for them in 1914, in the same way I would not have fought for the "sovereignty of poor Iraq" in 2003.
Would you?
If not, why contribute to the deaths of more innocents than necessary, by warmongering?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 @Bolivar "Grey turned Belgian neutrality into his cause célèbre. He told Prince Lichnowsky [German ambassador in London], that it would be extremely difficult to restrain public feeling in Britain if Germany violated Belgian neutrality.
Lichnowsky asked whether Grey could ‘give me a definite declaration of the neutrality of Great Britain on the condition that we [Germany] respected Belgian neutrality’. It was an astonishing suggestion, an enormous concession and one that could have spared Britain and Belgium the horrors of war. Lichnowsky was prepared to concede exactly what Grey claimed the British Cabinet wanted. Belgian sovereignty would be respected in exchange for a promise of Britain’s neutrality. Duplicitous as ever, Grey blurred the issue and avoided an honest reply, reassuring Lichnowsky that ‘for the present there was not the slightest intention of proceeding to hostilities against Germany’.
Lichnowsky to von Jagow, London, 1 August 1914, DD596, in Geiss, July 1914, p. 346.
Why did you stab all those poor Belgians in the back if you could have saved them with a conditional declaration of neutrality?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Why the (alleged) discussion between Grey and the German ambassador is (according to Occam's Razor) the most likely to be true, even if one claims "it never took place"?
Let's stick to this as our premise.
1) because according to the British Policy of Balance of Power, GB would never grant the status of neutrality, a military alliance, or any variation of Non-Aggression Pact with the most powerful continental country/alliance, whichever it is (after 1871, and German industrialisation, it just happened to be Germany) It was nothing personal.
GB would always ally against the most powerful country/alliance in case of war.
Therefore, any treaty of friendship with the most powerful country/alliance would contradict the Policy of Balance of Power. If it seems as if war is imminent, or unavoidable, or inevitable (whatever), GB would never declare its neutrality, sign a N/A Pact or any of the sort with the most powerful continental state or alliance.
That is what the policy practically dictates, and Grey followed it.
2) further proof is the Haldane Mission, in which the German delegation were informed that their request for British neutrality in case Germany was attacked, even if unprovoked could not be given = complete in line with London's stance ("we are the balancer of the continent").
3) that the Germans would justify their invasion of Belgium after they won the war. Yup.
You are simply too fixed on what happened, and therefore ignoring what could have happened.
Fact: Germany intended to win, and prepared for that eventuality.
In case Germany (whatsoever reason) had won WW1, their "written history" would have needed bloody good reasons for invading a neutral nation. Obviously, the German ambassador also knew Grey would never accept it. Why? Because of the Haldane Mission, Berlin already knew what the British stance was, and that London would refuse again, just like 1912.
The 2 requests were the German justification for when they won a war.
1
-
@bolivar2153 OK, thank you for the link. It refers to (or relates) to the "big picture", which was Europe.
Remember, Russia and France were both rapidly and massively arming themselves, and had own contingency plans to attack Germany (French Plan XVII, Russian Plan 19 aka "the steamroller to Berlin").
Of course, this did not threaten GB.
It did threaten Germany.
We can gladly discuss this further, but it isn't a part of the defined premise (see my previous comment).
So firsty: I assume you agree with me that the German offer of not invading Belgium, in return for a British declaration of neutrality, is then "most likely true"?
[Note, not the reasons why London refused, but the fact (or rather the "reasoning behind") that Berlin made this suggestion. Note: these are 2 different things, or "confused issues"]
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Concerning your first comment.
Yes, the British position could certainly have been suspected, or deducted "in broad strokes" to anybody with at least some access to power. Deducted, but not known.
When we get to the micro level, IMO we must always filter information with "who knew what and when" did they know it.
Ambassadors are mostly nothing else but "glorified messager boys" asked to convey certain messages "from sealed envelopes" so to speak. Unless officially determined to negotiate (like Ribbentropp in Moscow before the Soviet-German N/A Pact in Aug 1939), they had no power to determine policy.
No, Lichnowsky wasn't stupid, but he wasn't a strategist either.
He was a diplomat, and therefore gave diplomatic (aka "nice/pleasing") answers. We shouldn't overestimate the words he used significance.
Grey on the other hand "filtered" every response according to the "logic" of how to keep European powers balanced. That is what was demanded of him.
The discussion wasn't a negotiation.
Grey's intent was to favor Russia and France, not "keep the peace" or anything else. Note: nowhere in the policy are words like "peace", "war", "treaty", "pact", etc. mentioned.
The means on how to keep the balance was left to whomever had the position to decide, whatever time we are discussing. The policy didn't have any restrictions on *means*.
Consider the balance of power on the continent in 1914, and in this case specifically July/August 1914.
Austria-Hungary was way more powerful than Serbia.
Russia/Serbia was more powerful than Austria-Hungary.
Germany/Austria-Hungary was more powerful than Serbia/Russia, as well Serbia/Russia/France.
Conclusion?
London's position favored France, seen as in the weaker position.
Note:
Grey's position as you noted it, granted France the "right" to implement her Plan XVII (plus by implication, Russia her Plan 19), favorable to London.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 I can't see your entire comment.
I assume you edited it before it got "placed", meaning that it got swiped by YT.
From the part I can see in my notification panel.
Correct.
Berlin didn't give him the powers of negotiation. Especially not unlimited powers of negotiation, because he wasn't a military strategist...
As long as he got the (expected) negative/inconclusive/evasive answer from Grey, then that was all Berlin wanted.
Of course, Grey could have positively surprised him, and given him a British declaration of neutrality.
One which did not endanger any British interests (for example, no German invasion of neutrals, no German navy in the channel, no expansion of the war to the colonies, etc. This is a "list" to which you can gladly contribute to, in case you consider anything else a "British interest")
Fact:
The Policy of Balance of Power practically dictated that GB would not remain neutral.
"Belgium" had nothing to do with it.
1
-
@bolivar2153 I've already answered that :-)
Remember the comment I wrote that "states don't need reasons for war"?
That is basically it.
Initially, Wilhelm wanted Austria-Hungary to "teach pesky Serbia" a lesson, and to "settle matters quickly" before anybody could react and the crisis to draw wider circles.
The last thing that was needed was long drawn out debates, which wouldn't solve the core issue anyway (Russia using Serbia a strategic barrier, while itself having ambitions to gain the Dardanelles).
That Russia would support Belgrade was a no-brainer, so that a few threats to scare off Russia was deemed to be enough.
A little holiday in Norway, and once he returned, a new ruler for the defeated Serbia could be decided on.
The bloodless (for Germany) reward would be unhindered access to Constantinople.
Next holiday. The Topkapi Palace, and an alliance between Berlin-Vienna-Budapest-Constantinople was the aim.
Effect: a truly balanced continent, in which Germany did not have to fear becoming the victim of potential future Russian (Plan 19) and French (Plan XVII) aggression.
That was the intention.
Like I said.
States don't need a reason for war.
They make excuses, and for the Central Powers "the poor Archduke" was what would rally the support against "nasty Serbia".
There is no need to point out that this backfired.
There were multiple reasons why this backfired, and not all of it was Berlin or Vienna's fault.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Yes, then we have that in common. I also don't like any form of subjection, oppression, or arrogance of power.
Not reaching consensus after mutual agreement, by undemocratic means should belong to the past.
That is also my main objection to London's unilateral decision to become "the balancer" of power for Europe. They didn't ask anybody, and that lead to problems because it was contradictory.
Unlike 1815, when at least the major players reached their "balance of power" after negotiation.
For example the naval arms race.
Germany started building ships in order to defend herself, and that then escalated.
Obviously, if London objected to Germany building ships, then the logical conclusion should have been that the RN took over this task in the Baltic and North Sea, after reaching an Entente, Alliance, or other form of political/military treaty with Germany.
The Balance of Power neither "allowed" for the scenario of Germany building ships to protect her shores, nor did it "allow" a treaty of sorts with Germany when it became the continent's strongest power.
A self-destructive cycle, as we noticed.
Simply refusing an alliance, but arrogantly stating "thou shallt not build ships" was a contradiction.
1
-
@bolivar2153 Your above argument is too "GB focused".
There are also several built-in misconceptions, a result of constant repetition/recital, without anybody bothering to check up whether the original premise was ever correct.
Germany's main continental enemies were France and Russia.
GB and Germany or her predecessor states initially had few issues (say, around 1860 to 1880) with Germany. There was even active British support for a German navy.
Initially it was France which quickly recovered after 1871, and also rebuilt her Navy. Germany had to respond to this (see my comment somewhere up here, for more detailed description). Initial German naval construction was 'solely* aimed at France.
When France and Russia joined forces, Germany now had to content with the possibility of tow rivals. Russia, to attack/blockade the Baltic ports, France the North Sea.
So, in this phase, German naval re-armament was mainly aimed at these two states, which had allied against Germany, not the other way around.
German naval re-armament was defensive.
Yes, Germany also built small cruisers and small gunboats for overseas work, but Germany was also very careful not to antagonize GB(for example, by limiting the size of guns). By keeping the ships smaller than GB's, but especially by not setting up own collier stations, naval bases, etc. but buying this from GB.
This condition existed right up to WW1 in 1914.
German subjected itself to GB on the global level taking great care not to be seen as "ruling the world" or "taking away" anything from GB.
If war broke out, the leverage was 100% in GB hand, as the first few months of WW1 clearly showed.
Say around 1900, that is also were the situation could have "frozen".
Here is your own main misconception:
GB decided on her own policy of Naval superiority. This was not aimed at Germany. This was aimed at the next TWO navies. No countries or states are mentioned. It just happened to be Germany, and as with the Policy of Balance of Power...it was nothing personal.
GB tried to outbuild the next 2 navies, and Germany was only 1 of these.
The other one being her own ally.
Obviously, also a result of a decision taken in London.
Conclusion: there was no "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race".
There was a European Naval Arms Race.
British naval re-armament was aimed at all continental states (at this stage, the USA was not a factor yet, but it soon would be), and to remain superior to all, or any realistically possible continental alliance.
When British allies (if I remember correctly, France had the next biggest naval construction programmes) built more ships, GB also had to address that. When it simply became to much of a burden, GB changed the policy (again, this was too long ago and I'm too lazy to google now, but I believe the policy was changed to "building 60% of the next 3 navies").
My point here is that when it suited London, it changed her policy to accommodate her allies which were also carrying out re-armament, to which Germany then also had to react.
A vicious circle.
Why not address the root cause?
Why not change the Policy of Balance of Power?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 In case of your first comment.
Russia developed due to (mainly) French financial aid (loans) and technical support (industrial/military).
Yes, its "industrial revolution" started later than GB, France or Germany, so that in the "no war scenario" they'd have been a force to be reckoned with, flexing its muscles and whining about "our Dardanelles" eternally...
Answer: the German Army (without having resources "wasted" on a navy, would have opposed this).
Answer to an increasingly more powerful Russia in the long run?
Stick to developing Japan, keeping it a mostly British alliance partner (pro-European sphere of influence, opposing the westwards expansion of the USA).
Result: a globe with 3 main power blocks.
Europe, dominated by the Anglo-German alliance would have been invincible in any foreseeable future. Most likely "drawing in" the mini-powers on its rim. "Also rans" like Italy, Ottoman Empire or Spain could hardly have resisted the "pull factors" of an overpowering alliance.
Russia, with only (surrounded) France as a possible weak ally.
Isolated USA, as the dominant power in the New World (North and South America), but culturally "friendly" towards all of western Europe (immigration).
Considering how the world really turned out, not a bad end effect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Infinityxxxxxx Thank you.
Growing up in Christian influenced societies we (as individuals) are taught to see the world as "good vs bad".
That is, however, not the way many of our leaders see the world. They look at maps, countries, regions as areas that need to be controlled or balanced out.
Right or wrong? Not really relevant...according to these leaders.
Read the policy which predetermined how London would act ("commissions" as well as "omissions") or react to political situations...
It says nothing about bad leaders.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
There was only one consideration.
To uphold a balance.
Wilhelm being a "Trump" of the 1890s had little to do with it. At most, it offered a convenient excuse for own politics, always filtered or prioritized by the Policy of Balance of Powers.
All Wilhelm II wanted was an alliance, friendship treaty, Entente, or likewise (say, a N/A Pact), to protect his people from a possible 2-front attack by France and Russia.
London refused, even though an Entente with Germany, would have been very easy in the 1880s and 1890s.
After unification and industrialisation, Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war in any continental crisis or war, irrelevant of "who started it".
It was a policy, made in London, and strict adherence to it, which caused Europe to fail.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Words can be "spun". The reality of "what happened" cannot.
Here, an unknown and "spun" version of a famous historical event, "framed" according to our current MSM standards.
"The Herero revolted in early 1904, killing between 123 and 150 German settlers, as well as seven Boers and three women ..." [Wiki, note: this really happened]
Everybody knows that history started that day.
Obviously, the Germans had a right to defend themselves.
The press was all over the place going "Do you condemn the KHerero terrorists??" at the start of every interview with a "Herero apologist". Whenever questions were asked, just go "But it's a war" and follow up with a slogan like "They asked for it," or "Don't start something you can't finish," or "How can anybody live with neighbors like that?", or one or other of the typical short brainless comments under every "Gaza war" MSM video on youtube. When attrocities happen, claim innocence and point the finger..."It was the Herero's fault."
Did you hear that one about the "40 beheaded babies" too? Right thru to today, there are still a few useful idiots parroting that one...
Do you think you cannot be deceived by words? Think again.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau with re. to framing and spinning, or wording in propaganda: "There are always four sides to a story: Your side, their side, the truth and what really happened." The ingroup reality, the outgroup reality, the spun narrative that comes out of that, and the mangled timeline of events which starts with what the MSM wishes to elevate in importance, and follows (sometimes) with what they wish to hide or downplay.
With the DARVO strategy, and a nice sounding story, one can reverse "victim" and "offender" in every historical scenario.
"Deny the causes, accuse the oppressed, then reverse victim and offender," is happening and you are watching it, right now.
One day, everybody on the planet will have always been against this...
Now, scroll down in the comments of any typical pro-Israel vid, and confirm the above.
1
-
1
-
The problem is it only "hurts" the "arm" of the real empire, operating in the background: the USA, which uses Israel as a local "buck catcher" to create division in the ME.
‐------------------------
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better.
Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power.
In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe, and indirectly also the ME (by nodding off Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration) were divided, with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." (end of)
There is no doubt that Washington DC is attempting to repeat this "success" (pov) in the rising powers of Asia.
The strategy can be observed to be implemented in the same way as was set up post-1900 in Europe, but in Europe the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer theory) were Great Britain and France.
Today, it is India being used in the same role as France was 100 years ago. In case of a wider war in Asia, as India is set up against China, qui bono if all lose?
The technique Washington DC employed up to the year 2000, is an almost exact repeat of the technique they used to overpower Europe around the year 1900: DIVIDE AND RULE.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KatyushaLauncher Back in the days of sail, British Admirals had wide-ranging powers, even of a political nature for obvious reasons.
It was also the most successful days of Empire.
Strange how historians would conclude that it was "generals sitting in Chateaus far away from the action" which lost many battles in WW1 and early-WW2, rather than allowing front-line commanders and officers to lead from the front, given "objectives", not specific orders.
True.
The specific orders by the Admirality, coupled with Churchill's "settle matters quickly" had 2 main effects:
1) it took the decision out of the hands of Admiral Somerville
2) put emense pressure, by dictated orders (rather than "objectives")
Even Churchill must have instinctively grasped that it was a mistake, and he prepared 2 speeches for Parliament.
One conciliatory, the other more defiant...
It was neither "necessary", nor wise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AW-dt8ct At the time Frampol was bombed, it was also around 50 miles behind the frontlines, and already abandoned by most of the inhabitants, which had fled, expecting the ground war to reach it soon.
Just like the allies during WW2, LW air crews were forbidden to return to base with their bomb loads in case the intended targets couldn't be found, or (in case they were troop concentrations), had already dispersed when the aircraft arrived.
It therefore makes more sense that it was bombed as a "target of opportunity", because the original intended targets weren't found.
Note the facts. It burned for several days because the inhabitants had fled (around 10 people died), meaning that no firefighters fought the fires, and the flames could subsequently eat its way from house to house.
Not saying this was "better", or not a "war crime" (it still was), but reports or historians telling you it was "bombed by 700 tons of bombs for fun" (or similar) are lying.
A real military historian would point out that the LW suffered from a munitions crisis at the time, and would have hardly bombed anything "for fun".
Also, look at aerial photographs of the town after the attack.
There are almost no bomb craters outside of the town perimeter, and the fields around. This points at an attack by a few aircraft, at low level, and in a short period (bombing run).
If the smoke from fires had obscured the town, the bombs would have been spread into the fields surrounding Frampol.
1
-
1
-
1
-
What you will be up against, as a well-funded being...
It's divide-and-rule.
At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule.
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others...
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favouritism.
"Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Africa, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the behavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD"
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, diplomats, business elites, magnates, industrialists, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute to the divide-and-rule world, without even being aware of the fact. It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of. What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of dumbasses in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. For the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact that it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "biggest loser" of the systemic conflagrations that were "WW1" and "WW2" was the great divider/grand encircler London/British Empire. Around the year 1900 its lords set out to encircle (by proxy) its biggest contester: Germany.
HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books. Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source)
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies. From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
Logic? Reason? If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
EPISODE I:
1901: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world." SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies (ALL MORE THAN ADEQUATELY ELABORATED in the below comments section) called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened.
EPISODES II thru IV:
Lotsa other stuff happening.
EPISODE V:
If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003. Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power. When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died. They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it. The urge to deflect blame for the own actions (encirclement strategy) which backfired leading to the end of the British Empire is human nature. The reality is that lower tiers don't "win" anything (gain) in wars. The higher systemic tiers "win" at the expense of the masses. The end result is then always the same.
99% lose, and the tops of the pyramids of power (industrial, financial, political tiers) "win" bigtime.
If I were the biggest Dunning-Kruger Medal of Honor recipients in history, I too, would put up a stiff resistance, with deflection, framing, and spinning the "nice story"... The biggest "buck-catchers" the world had ever known. Fighting so others gain at their expense. Trying to dig a hole for their neighbors, and fell into it last. British Empire: Gone with the wind...Lost to the American Century.
It is said that "No empire lasts forever", and this is specifically true for the narcissistic ones.
Fell into the pond, like Narcissus.
1
-
So Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickegruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nova77791 Whatever.
How about history?
What you can really say is is true, is "as you sow, you shall reap"...
From globalreach
*"In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria."*
As they say. You are what you eat. In the same way, dumb 'murica reaps what it constantly sows -- hate, division, war...
So suck it up, snowflake. Nobody gives a sh*t about whining dumb 'muricans crying about 9/11.
Even their Bible says "reap what you sow"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Regarding "the bully", and human nature, there is a direct connection between how individuals and states act and react: obviously, since states are made up of individuals with an intent of gain motive. One can therefore draw comparissons between the micro level of individuals or small scale systems (society and companies), and the macro level of corporations, big power interests, and therefore states and empires.
They all act, and react in similar ways, and the connecting link is strategy.
Dr. Gary Namie conducted an exhaustive series of micro level studies to conclude that there are four categories of toxic bullies in society and the workplace, based on the carefull observation and close encounters with other human beings. The four types of bullies are the Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper.
Screaming Mimi is the fist-wielding screamer who chooses a public setting in order to vociferously point fingers in your face...
Two-Headed Snake is the Jekyll and Hyde back-stabber, who steals the credit for the hard work of others. They smile and are 100% in control of body language with studied "backpats" and superficial compliments, yet behind the back spread lies, rumor, innuendo in order to damage reputations of adversaries...
The Constant Critic is another one of the "finger pointing"-variety of of "friends", who's not above falsifying information, or burning documents, to pin “mistakes” on others...
The Gatekeepers withhold resources others need to succeed, jealously guarding own privileges against other systems trying to make it...
Our history books are full of warnings against the "screaming Mimi" variety, yet when it comes to other bully tactics, the inhabitants of systems become remarkably acquiescent, apologetic, and complacent about observed, or unobserved actions of bullying. This is eventually to their own disadvantage, and to the advantage of outside powers looking in from the distance.
Bullying is of course nothing else but a strategy.
All systems, on all levels of society and international relations, use strategies.
So, not for the first time in history, Europeans are becoming victims of their own failed human nature: to a large extent, the own built-in biases, or indifference (some), complacency (some) and ignorance (some). Thereby indirectly supporting bully tactics by their leaders.
Not for the first time in history, the opportunity to sign a mutually agreeable comprehensive European security agreement was bypassed, to the mutual detriment of all European systems. A previous time this happened was in 1905 (see below comments thread).
"President Dmitry Medvedev presented the initial proposal for a revision of the European security system during his visit to Berlin in June 2008. The proposal included the signature of a legally binding treaty (involving all states and organisations active in Europe). The Russian proposal has been subsequently repeated on many occasions, including by the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov in his address to the UN General Assembly in September 2008 ... During World Policy Conference in Evian, France on 8 October, the Russian president explained the original idea more precisely by presenting the five principles on which the new system should be based. The key element of Medvedev’s plan remains the postulate of equal security for all, which, if implemented, would mean that no actions that might be perceived as threatening the security of others would be allowed ..." CES Commentary, Center for Eastern Studies, 16.10.2008
Empires come in 4 toxic flavors: The Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper.
If you as an individual is constantly warned about the first, watch out for what you are not being told: keep a lookout for the last three.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 There is a much deeper issue never discussed in documentaries or videos like this, which is geopolitics.
If a state always does what it can, rather than what it should, then these actions will have effects.
An "issue" I've never seen discussed, except for the false "Roosevelt had to be impressed"-narrative, is the attitude of the USA.
Concerning WW2, it had the geographical advantage of being able to sit on the fence, and "steer" events for the own advantage.
According to the logic of "never let a crisis/war go to waste", the American Century aimed to benefit from the mistakes of its rivals. Yes, the British Empire was a rival.
The "Roosevelt had to be impressed"-narrative is false.
All the American Century fanboys in Washington DC were waited for was to see (after France), was how the alliances were going to play out, who was going to end up fighting whom, before investing in the war.
The USA was safe.
[I'll copy a longer comment re. "geographical advantage" below this one]
For the American Century, it was purely a matter of knowing that GB would keep on fighting the Axis powers, and for that an attack on the Axis powers somewhere would also have sufficed.
What Mers effectively ended, was the "cordial" part of the "entente". Regarding the way ensuring how The British Empire was indirectly protected on the continent, that was one of the last "nails in the coffin" of Empire. After Mers, France (figuratively) went across the Atlantic to cry on the ample American shoulder, and was no longer a "power" protecting the British Empire [I'll post a longer comment regarding how "balancing powers" on the continent, protected the British Empire indirectly].
Mers was a geopolitical disaster, because of its political effects.
On the other hand, giving viewers "options" about "what else could have have done", but leaving out the obvious (or not considering it a viable option) is known as "false dichotomy". Implying that there were no other options, even though there were, and better ones.
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 The British Empire was indirectly protect on the continent. GB never had the population or the industrial might to rule a quarter of the globe, and indirectly achieved this aim successfully for more than a 100 years.
Of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected on the continent by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, or dissing it irreparable, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angry about Mers el Kebir and had slipped under Washington's wings.
After Mers, France was out of the equation.
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = sold off, and overrun by the commies
After WW2, there was nothing left to "balance" with...
Why do you think Roosevelt "was really pleased"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A solution for the Ukraine already existed in 1917/18 and the British and French intention was to torpedo the peace achieved after Brest-Litovsk, for the millions of people living here.
The Allies should have used their victory in the west, to ease some of the harsher conditions, without altering the main conditions, at least until the newly formed independent nations had organized and consolidated their own nations into self-supporting (and defensible) states.
Unfortunately for these millions, the "spheres of influence"-schemers on the "good guy"-side had other plans for the inhabitants.
"On December 23, 1917, the day after the first session of the preliminary Brest-Litovsk Peace Conference, representatives of Great Britain and France met in Paris and secretly concluded an agreement to dismember Soviet Russia. The agreement was entitled L’Accord Français-Anglais du 23 Décembre, 1917, définissant les zones d’action françaises et anglaises. According to its terms, England was to receive a “zone of influence” in Russia, giving her the oil of the Caucasus and control of the Baltic provinces; France a “zone” giving her the iron and coal of the Donets Basin and control of the Crimea. This secret Anglo-French treaty inevitably shaped the policy these two nations were to pursue towards Russia throughout the next several years."
THE GREAT CONSPIRACY AGAINST RUSSIA BY MICHAEL SAYERS AND ALBERT E. KAHN
"Churchill’s take on the Ukraine, specifically, is fascinating and echoes instructively. “Profiting by the fact that German troops were rapidly withdrawn after the Armistice, and no other ordered force took their place, [the Bolshevik armies] advanced rapidly and overan the whole of the Ukraine,” Churchill told the House of Commons in a speech on March 26. [1919]"
churchillstyle dot com
The second clause of the Armistice of 1918 (concerning the ex-Eastern Front) was a short-sighted vindictive and self-centered decision, especially since the Russian invasion of Finland in 1918 had already shown what the Reds were capable of, and what they thought about independence and freedom of others.
Allied leaders completely underestimated the Reds, and millions of people subsequently suffered the loss of their lives, health and property. The hordes of "Reds" obviously profitted from the "power vacuum" which the forced removal of German soldiers had resulted in, and they covered an already largely pacified region of the world with "rivers of blood".
The Ukraine could have already been independent after 1918.
All it would have needed was a deal and a signature.
We should stop pretending that our leaders care about people.
Neither today, nor in the past.
Arthur Balfour's opinion about Wilson, Llyod George, and Clemenceau : 'These three, all powerful, all ignorant men, sitting there and carving up continents, with only a child to lead them'.
There was no real difference between any of them.
They sit in their cosy offices, behind impressive desks drawing their "green lines" on the maps without consulting those who actually live there.
Oh, what a "burden" for these "white men".
Just remember: If you (personally) don't live in a region of interest to such "gentlemen", you'll be written off with a warm-hearted "thought and prayer" the minute a crisis or war starts.
Just a "thought" and "a prayer", but not much else...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
US Congressperson Dan Crenshaw (note his military background, therefore knowledge about strategies) recently stated re. the concept of "rather letting them fight over there" (a reference to the strategy of "the proxy"), after a 40 billion aid package to the Ukraine: “Yeah, because investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea. You should feel the same.” (in a "shame game" with Republicans via Twitter who voted against the aid package).
Yup.
A "great idea" (sic.) to fund others fighting over there, so we don't have to fight them, and earn some "donations" along the way. What's there not to like?
One might think that this is "anecdotal", but as Napoleon said only the coward won't tell you what he thinks in your face. And there are a ton of cowards in the field of politics.
One might think whatever one wants about Dan Crenshaw, but at least he is honest.
If anybody ends up in a muddy trench, it's not his fault.
Of course, its never the fault of the "system" he's in called "world alpha" either, since it's a free world, and if you're stupid enough to end up in the "muddy trench" fighting so that men like him (or, his "buddies" in "the system") can rake in obscene profits in the rackets they will always vote against avoiding, it's not his issue.
He'll be in church on Sundays, praying the loudest, and he'll be on twitter on Monday, making fun of those not smart enough.
I assume, he'll have his "flock" of supporters, irrelevant of what he utters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MACHIAVELLIAN PRINCIPLE OF FAIRNESS
One sure-fire way to avoid conflict, is one of the oldest wisdoms/strategies of all: to do onto others, as one wishes to be done onto (not ONLY a moral standpoint, but ALSO a strategy of power to avoid escalation). Of course, per Machiavelli, it is not only a wisdom, but also a strategy of power. Often quoted by imperialists/militarists with agendas as being "Machiavellian" is that "It is better to be feared than loved" which is however a distorted version of the Machiavellian strategy. The same way they lie and distort everything, in order to bend the truth to fit their own world views. Unfortunately, even Machiavelli's writing have become distorted into meaning "It's cool to be an a-hole and brag about it." What Machiavelli actually advised in Chapter XVII was that it is best to be both loved and feared (compromise and deterrence, by being fair). Only when that ideal of "to be loved" is not possible, then to make others "fear" is the way forward. As always, the manipulators, the deceivers, the liars (by omitting half the strategy) will always pretend to expose "truths," whereas what they are doing is actually distorting it. To bear false witness (KNOWingly lie) is a cardinal sin, which results in EFFECTS.
Per Machiavelli: Strategy of "fairness". Do you wish to be encircled, and be encroached upon, and be controlled from outside? Then don't do it to others. Because "fair" is (per Machiavelli) ALSO a strategy of power, and such principles as "putting yourself in the shoes" or "walking a mile in their shoes" are ways to determine a fair principle. The unprincipled have no principles, therefore avoid wasting time on them. Get away from them and let them march into their trenches.
The entire above patterns of rhyming history means wrongdoers will simply always cherry pick their logic, usually by determining the own timeline of events, leaving out data which does not suit the own storyline.
That is why the world needs a global, multi-tiered, legally-based balance of power.
GEOPOSITIONAL ADVANTAGE
Explaining the concept of "an advantage" is simple. The "mommy's basement hero" or the similar "keyboard warrior" is the archetype of an individual arguing from a geopositional advantage. The own standpoint can be richly, proudly, carnivorously (greed) and hectoringly, all loosely quoting Thomas Jefferson, defended from a unique position of being unaffected by the potential EFFECTS of the own standpoint being so vociferously voiced and proclaimed. In other words, as many proverbial expressions state, the advocate will never face or expects never to face, any consequences of the own vociferously claimed "truth". This can of course be quite amusing, if the debater is merely some teen childishly arguing from the safety of his mommy's basement, using every false premise, every cognitive bias, and every fallacy in reasoning imaginable, whilst trumpeting the own "rights", all the while faraway from the events loudly cheered for...
If these are our leaders, then the situation is different. In fact, the repeatedly proclaimed "truths" only means arguing others into a standoff or conflict. These "others" are usually not their own kin, or friends. The intention of the latter is to provoke a reaction to an own unjustified standpoint, then quickly run off into the own safety zone and from there (eating popcorn) "watch others fight". These leaders actually have the clout to implement the actions they proclaim as "correct", unlike the powerless "mommy's basement hero". Both however, stand nothing to lose. Or, so they think. Supporting such "heroes" is the worst strategy in a democracy, since one actually ends up with the worst type of leadership one can imagine: The coward. The manipulator. The weak mind.
A simple question exposes them: Why aren't you there, in the "trenches," defending your OWN standpoint? The place where you can actually stand to lose something?
Then listen/read very carefully.
Of course, this argument cannot be simply thrown back at the originator of the universal principled standpoint, as opposed to the unprincipled standpoint of the "basement hero" as introduced into memes and folklore and as explained above. A principled standpoint means NOT to get into such positions as "the standoff" in the first place. The standoffs as advocated BY these "basement heroes", are the escalation patterns which are recurrent throughout history. Unfortunately our species is evolutionary wired not only to become susceptible to manipulation, deception, lies and half-truths, but also to become the creators of manipulation, deception, lies and half-truths, and evolutionary wired to pass all of this on as "stories" without thinking too much about what they pass on as the favoured "story." Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quite or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
What do all such deceivers and manipulators have in common? The "paragraph thumpers", the "contract distorters", the "treaty prioritizers", and all such "chest thumper"-versions of (his) story?
Correct answer: they try to deflect from one simple reality. They "do unto others" as they will never consider acceptable, if "done unto"...
Find out what they do not care to address, and thereby find out their modus operandi.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@atatsmail260 "Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
BRICS
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
SETTLER COLONIALISM
The last 500 years of European/white settler colonialism as a subsection of the divide-and-rule technique. The strategy was "farms/forts" and a systemic, slow advance into the lands of ingenious peoples all over the world. Same happened in North America, Australia, New Zealand, the Levant, South America, Southern Africa, etc.
Broken promises, broken treaties, looking for excuses to make the next 'step' (ratchet principle). The only places the strategy of slow ponderous expansion failed was where the local systems were too numerous or organized (East Asia). The "template" might have various regional differences, but the end effect is always the same. Slow, step-by-step advance of the own ideology, economic systems, corporations and political power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA wants a vigilante world, just like some cheap Hollywood movie: they want to be judge, jury, and executioner, based solely on their own "rules", and intent of gain, to keep everybody else down in wealth/power.
"There are two ways to conquer a country. One is by invasion, the other by debt." - John Quincy Adams
Europe is a lost cause.
Their subjection started around 1900
It is easier to divide people and systems than it is to unite them.
Dividing the opposing systems, is the first and easiest step towards power. Once divided, another system's power and strength is decreased, like taking bricks out of a wall, one by one...
Around 1900, Washington DC obviously saw their "opportunity" to step in and divide Europe even more by means of favoritism, as the monarchic principle waned at the end if the 19th century, the death of Queen Victoria being the symbolic "sword in the neck" of the end of the era of European balance of power (est. 1815).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened. The word "rule" also constitutes a "trigger", or natural aversion, which would mean psychologically oposing a theory, simply based on the words used.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please, lol.
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage (see below comments thread for a few). These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favoratism.
"Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
1
-
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So British leaders bombed the British Empire into ruin.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Nice exchange.
The current generation of kiddies can chant "Bomber Harris do it again" for all eternity.
It only cost the Brits their Empire...
Seems like a fair deal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA and divide Europe and rule the world...
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
Regarding in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's leaders, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement, amongst other less "valuable" suitors (like Germany, see below comment), was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped in to avoid any form of continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below).
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises" :-)
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below comment explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
"Right or wrong" is of course easily and neutrally determined by "putting oneself in the shoes" of others.
When it came to "little nations being thrown to crocodiles", own interests came first.
Principles went overboard.
What aided in dividing Europe came first. The independence of little nations? Not so much...
Washington DC: "Principles like we showed in 1905? Nah. Let's ruffle some European feathers."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Africa beware.
Beware of "friends" coming from outside, offering or promising to support you in your "cause."
The strategy of "divide and rule/conquer" is the force to influence billions of minds, and is strategy acting in conjunction with human nature (particularly, emotions). It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: wrong.
It is so misunderstood, because it is as much a strategy of "top down" measures of power players, as it is of "bottom up" failure (human nature).
The "dissent" is created by fanboys/fangirls defending the actions of their own "favorites" (individuals/systems/"-isms"/etc.)
It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own input, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependencies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid the divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is. Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use the technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter the shark tank of the "divide and rule"-system.
The favorite = favoratism = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iuvalclejan "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
David Ben-Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
“Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. … Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice.”
— David Ben Gurion. Quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan’s “Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.
“We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return.”
David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar’s Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.
1
-
@iuvalclejan Now you are doing the "all the empires were bad"-thingy 😆
"In rhetoric and ethics, "two wrongs don't make a right" and "two wrongs make a right" are phrases that denote philosophical norms. "Two wrongs make a right" has been considered as a fallacy of relevance, in which an allegation of wrongdoing is countered with a similar allegation. ... "Two wrongs make a right" is considered "one of the most common fallacies in Western philosophy".[1]" [wiki]
In short, one doesn't become "right," by pointing at another wrongful deed in order to establish a benchmark.
Here is the historical reality.
WW1 served as a watershed in history, after which Western empires stepped into the Levant/ME, meaning that the Ottoman Empire was no longer responsible for decisions made after that.
One can blame the Ottoman Empire for things that went wrong while they were in charge, before WW1, but not for things which went wrong after WW1.
That both GB and France "lay the foundation" for the current state of affairs, and that further outside imperial meddliing after that (Cold War/proxy wars), is well-researched and generally not disputed by historians and analysts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iuvalclejan Imperialists use religions to create "ingroups." The "us"-feeling. All religions were at some point hijacked by politics, in order to unite people for a specific purpose.
The intention of all these '-isms" is to motivate large groups for a cause.
If a counterforce of the same power cannot be created by an opposite, then one "-ism- will overpower another.
That is what happened during WW1. The Ottoman Empire was squeezed out of the ME by European Empires, and Zionism sailed in the wake, to exploit the power vacuum.
The resistance to this overpowering has been continuous, and not only since 1948, but rather ever since the first mass immigration was met with riots in 1922. The resistance to mass immigration has gradually escalated since the early-1920.
This is more or less the big picture timeline, onto which one can then zoom in, and elaborate various more detailed micro-level events.
But my initial statement will stay correct, regardless of what other event one wishes to elaborate. Ben Gurion was very honest about this. He stated clearly that Jews were the outsiders, who intended to recreate Israel, with the aid of imperialist powers, against the wishes of those who lived there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Backpacker8381 100% agreed.
It is also a fact: By own admission, and known to all, the USA misuses NATO as a tool to ensure its global hegemony.
For that it needs "Euroweanies" that it can manipulate.
Just enough emotionally steered "Euroweanies" who are easily manipulated in a giant "divide and rule"-game, which uses a variety of emotionally-laden topics to incite outrage, tear open old wounds (history), and/or use negative human emotions like greed or the fear of losing out, etc. to stir up trouble.
"Trouble" can then be swum in, like a fish in water.
As soon as there is some signs of more unity, the various well-funded "think tanks" and "lobby groups" (aka "strategic studies"...ahem..."centers") remind the people how "evil" the "others" still are, what they did a hundred years ago, how they "wanted to kill your grand-dadda", whatever...
My advice: beware of the dividers.
Age-old advice: "When a man is prey to his emotions, he is not his own master" (Benedict de Spinoza).
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]"
Or as the old "insider joke" goes: NATO's "function" is "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out."
Europe is a joke (no offense, I live in Europe).
"Euroweanies" will forever bow down and allow themselves to be used as tools.
1
-
1
-
@Backpacker8381 Yes. Ironically, about exactly 100 years ago Russia did exactly the same to Austria-Hungary.
After a coup in Belgrade they "turned" the local Serb government, which then threatened Austria-Hungary with a two front war.
For Russia, these were the "good ol' days" when they were still "best fwiends" with France and GB:
Of course during the "good ol' days" of "friendly entente Russia", St. Petersburg/Russia could appease Belgrade in their quest of destabilising their neighboring state (Austria-Hungary) in their violent nationalist quest for Nacertanije and carving up Austria-Hungary. St Petersburg could try to misuse known Serb ambitions for Greater Serbia (openly known since 1906) for the own goal of destabilising the Balkans for own geopolitical goals (access to the Med via the Dardanelles), as the "entente good guys" turned a blind eye. Being a "good guy" herself, Russia could set out to misuse Serbs as a "human wall" in lieu of overly obvious direct state influence, to stop a potential alliance between Berlin and the Ottoman Empire becoming viable. The "usefull tool" aka "Entente partner" St Petersburg had the tacid permission and could appease Belgrade and convert the previous Austrian-Hungarian sphere of influence (Serbia) into a "tool" to create a security issue for Austria-Hungary (potential two-front war danger for Vienna/Budapest).
Note how the "good guys" create "poor people"-arguments directed at Moscow today, the same way that the predecessor St. Petersburg created "poor people"-arguments against the object of their desire...Austria-Hungary.
The "regular run" of history is of course that "poor slavs" trapped in an Imperialist Russia (conquered, brutalized and oppressed) is perfectly OK, but Serbs trapped in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire just screams for a "historical adjustment". Go figure...
What happened to these "party times" when Russians were the good guys who could do no harm?
Doesn't everybody just love becoming encroached upon and encircled?
Let's ask Russians today how they feel about "encroachment/encirclement"...
The same "security issues" St Petersburg once created for Austria-Hungary, suddenly don't sound so "cool" anymore, when the shoe is on the other foot.
One could say Russia complaining about "NATO encroachment" is a kind of belated "karma"...
1
-
The typical US or collective Western supremacist thinks the so-called "West" must rule in order for there to be peace in the world. In reality it is just a strategy to keep the entire non-Western world "down" in wealth and "out" of positions of any real power to control their own affairs, whilst keeping own favourites "in" power to determine the way the planet is steered by strategies of power. International cooperation, International Law, international organisations like the UN are just the façade because these organisations lack real POWER to enforce anything decided upon by the global "doves", specifically if it regards the interests of the global south.
History has shown again and again, that the political hawks from the USA/collective west do whatever they want, within a few set limitations, and do not consider their own actions as reprehensible. Despite all the preaching and talking, and debating and rationalizing of wrongful deeds, it is the interests of those carrying out the actions which determine the way events unfold.
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."
This is not just some random anecdotal evidence out of context. This is divide-and-rule.
Kennan was the prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet. These pro-Western supremacists always claim to love international rules and mutually agreed upon laws, but seldom protest if the USA/collective West makes a mockery of International Law and humanity's collective values (moral values), by overtly exposing their hypocrisy. Even if many in the West protest, these protests lack the POWER to change anything, making them realistically meaningless: the mere documentation of wrongdoing. This is regardless of events taking place in the present or whether it is our recent relevant history (living history).
This is divide-and-rule.
And that is what you are fighting for if you live in the USA/collective West. That is what the hegemon has always done for the past 500 years, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. Historically, the "good cops" were the internationalists/globalists, and the "bad cops" were the imperialists/militarists. Strategies that can be analysed when looking at the events and ignoring all the kind words. These words are name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences, enjoying their "gardens" whilst contemplating walls to keep the "jungles" out (now infamous Joseph Borrel speech). America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion are written down in a thousand books.
They KNOW you don't read...
After 1945, the Albion 2.0 took over...
Their strategy is, and has always been, the divide-and-rule technique predicated on lies, deceit, manipulation, the interaction between mass-influencing (via soft power) and the creation mass-harm (hard power). The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Divide-and-rule within the own borders, disguised as "meritocracy." Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
For the elites playing this game, it has nothing to do with ethnicity, or cultural groups, or which "lines on map" you happen to live within, or which religion you practice, or which language you speak, merit or anything else. They use these exact divisions, against you.
----------------------
Footnote:
As soon as the evidence of foul play mounts, tons of archival evidence presented, and there is no way out, the next "trick" is employed: bothsidesism.
1) Only ONE "side" is the empire though, so this is just another trick of the mainstream media (incl. academia, or the MIMAC) that you have to "see both sides" and then the arguments start.
2) The eternal "finger pointing" begins, whilst in the background the ACTIONS prevail.
You only have to look at who has an interest in Europeans arguing, falling apart and getting into fights (crises and wars).
Then you see the "games" our "friends" (Washington DC) are playing with the world to ensure the disparity continues and one side skims off most of the gains...
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The last time the USA gained big time, was after the USA had played its own still relatively small part in setting up Imperialist Europe for failure 100 years ago, starting around 1900 in small steps, using the divide and rule technique of power and from a position of unassailable geographical favor (the geographical reality can also be stated using other words, such as "competing from advantageous ground"/RAND Report, 2019).
How are American psycho leaders going to get Eurasian states/countries, incl. their own "friends" in the EU, and the rising East Asian part of BRICS, to go "down" again so the good times of "50% wealth for us" (post-WW2 strategy/McKennan), while attracting and raking in all the runaway talent from everywhere else as these regions are destroyed by crises and war (brain drain), and as these wars are funded by the post-1913 fiat currency dollar hegemony? (see footnote)
(this technique of how to sow division, accompanied by a host of examples, is more than sufficiently elaborated in the below comments section and is aka as "divide and rule")
How can US leadership avoid having to deal with the OWN divided and ruled population when they can no longer be pacified by throwing heaps of luxury into their laps, getting successively disgruntled as the amount of afforded wealth is decreasing yearly, and ever-more divided more and more unevenly within the own system (1% owning 50% of wealth in the USA) while everybody else on the planets is "exhausted" and "extended," all the while pretending to be friends? Note that the current rising anger within the USA is no longer ground on moral inequalities, such as the large uprisings in the 1960s, and 1970s. The current anger on the the streets, is overwhelming carried by a massive inequality within the OWN country, with the mega-rich encroaching on the own small amounts of acquired wealth in ever more outrageous and openly advocated and politically backed corporate steps. These private equity vultures that were once set loose on the entire planet, are now coming "home to roost"...
Obviously, unlike the post-WW2 "good ol' days" there is not enough to pass around anymore, as others rise and start demanding a fair share of the world's resources, on ALL "front lines" (tiers of power).
What are they going to do?
They are already doing it.
Implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power, both abroad as well as over the own people, same as ever since they existed.
The top tiers divide and rule, and this functions in one direction only: down, to the base, which is "we the people."
They divide us, but we have no way or means to divide them, the top tiers, in return.
footnote
Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money = "control" the resources. It doesn't need a ton of books to explain what money is. Money is simply a tender, which is used to allocate the resources of the planet, which are limited. "Control" the money/currency = "control" the resources.
"If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu," February 17th 2024, US Secretary of State Blinken. If you don't got the money honey, YOU are going to be eaten, if YOU don't unite with your neighbors, regardless of their class, religious beliefs, race or ethnicity, place of birth, language, culture or other easily implemented "divides" such as "lines drawn on a map" which are often politically exploited to the gain of the "top tiers."
Money is a vehicle to allocate resources within the globalist elite systems, with little bits trickling down to the minions. It's the physical resources which are limited, and who controls the flow of printable money, controls the flow of resources.
1
-
1
-
“The dumbing down (of America is evident in the slow decay of substantive content, a kind of celebration of ignorance.”
— Carl Sagan
He had a foreboding of America of the future. While he was alive, he witnessed how manufacturing jobs were being shifted abroad, and everything became focussed on making as much profit for as few super-rich as possible, and as much for a few as possibly achievable without an outright revolution, while the endless talking and talking and talking carried on and on and on...
In more detail:
“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wrong question.
British historians should rather answer the question why London "set up" Belgium as a "tool" to incite outrage in a new age when volunteers would have to come forward to defend the Empire.
The real "WW1", or first "great" war actually took place from 1803 to 1815.
In terms of scope and victims, it was mainly limited by technology. Still, despite the limited capabilities of the weapons of the times, there were more than 4 million victims, in all corners of the globe.
The first truly "global war".
Notice however how historians (correctly btw) separate this "first global war" (aka The Napoleonic Wars) into seven distinct phases, based on a scientific and exact analyses of the reasons/motivations at the time, whereas for WW1/WW2 there are attempts to create one big emotionally steered mashup.
Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, historians are of course far more candid re. "motivations/reasons" (note: the real reasons, not the ancillary details). Most people are entirely emotionally detached from events 200 years ago, so there is also no need to spin history either to appease an own population.
There are no endless debates about "Who started it?"
The Napolionic Wars were of course declared by London, as a preventive war, in May 1803, and the (correct) reason/motivation given for this declaration of war, by most historians, is that it was to "avoid the single hegemony" on the continent.
In 1914, "WW1" evolved out of a local conflict, which started in the Balkans, and through a few unfortunate twists and turns developed into the second truly "world" war, in order to establish domination and rule.
Hanlon's Razor states "not to attribute to mallice, what can adequately be explained by stupidity", and with WW1, Europe started its own demise because of efforts to remain individually dominant/relevant.
Of course, on the other side of the Atlantic, wars were always fought for unity, and common goals (aim of expansion).
The American Century was a ship already launched, but renamed halfway.
The "ship" started its journey with a war of unity (Civil War because of "poor slaves" aka "the emotional argument"), then expanding westwards (Manifest Destiny, Mexican-American War), getting rid of entities which could be misused by foreign powers to "divide and rule" ("Trails of Tears" of the unfortunate "losers" of history), and the consolidation of own strength (Monroe Doctrine/Spanish-American War).
And with that, the "ship" bumped up against the "dock", which was European rule and domination of the globe.
Didn't anybody notice?
The history of the world, in five minutes, I guess...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williambradley9419 Another "good book" for you, if it isn't too TLDR for you...
Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised. "Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
1
-
@soapmaker2263 The "fiat currency" was a global policy created in the New World (USA) to overpower the Old World (Europe).
All the strategists in Washington DC (Internationalists soon to become the American Century) had to do was keenly observe...
A London policy made the strongest continental power the default "rival in peace", and the default "enemy in war".
London had 2 chances to correct their faulty reasoning.
One with Wilhelm II, roughly until 1900, until German leaders lost their patience trying to get a mutually beneficial treaty with London.
The 2nd chance, after WW1, while Germany was a democracy.
They blew both chances, and would subsequently lose their Empire.
Because roughly in parallel to Germany on the continent across the English Channel, there was another "new power" rising across the Atlantic, whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”
It was the USA.
Or "maybe they (Europe) won't notice if we sneak up on them..."
The American Century advocates in Washington DC were very good at "biding time" and "keeping a low profile...until they were strong enough to eclipse "the old", and not to care anymore.
With the "leverage" geography gave them (distance from squabbling Europeans), plus a drastically increasing power, as technology shrunk the world, they knew they would just have to wait long enough until the eternally squabbling Europeans had torn themselves to shreds.
Because in the arsenals of M-A-I-N there was another "weapon".
Well-known at the time, and formulated into words by John Quincy Adams: "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country: One is by sword and one is by debt."
Note: it was "a plan" of sorts.
Wait.
Simply wait.
Washington DC/The American Century: "Let's see what happens. Never let a crisis or war go to waste."
Washington DC: If your rivals are making a mistake, don't interrupt them...
The main big difference?
While London afronted/confronted the strongest continental power/alliance which was Germany and the Dual Alliance at the time, as a matter of policy, the USA made the strongest power/alliance the "temporary friend" during crises and wars, only to overpower it commercially/economically/financially after WW2 was over."
Smart.
Kaiser Bill wished for "a place in the sun" (i.e. "markets", and "spheres of influence").
IMHO they should've just given him one, without the push-back.
It was greed and the control-freak instincts of "old empires", jealously guarding their own.
What unfolded after that, was basically a bed Europe had made for themselves, and with WW1, Versailles (and others like Saint-Germaine, or Trianon) and WW2, had to sleep in.
1
-
1
-
"God" is the original "divider" using favoratism ("chosen ones"). The technique is to get mankind to do the exact opposite as stated in the 10 Commandments, thereby initiating the divide-and-rule technique of gain: deceive men to lie, steal, ki!!, bow down to money and other human beings, idolize wealth, idolize man-made systems, and covet the resources below the feet of others, then bear false witness with regards to what they initiated...
》》》》》》》》》》》》》
The powerful have used the strategy of divide-and-rule for thousands of years to drive a wedge between peoples.
As Johann Wolfgang von Goethe noted back then: "Divide and rule, calls the politician; unite and lead, is the slogan of the wise."
Some politicians and rulers may do this innocently and without thinking, but most know exactly what they are doing with their divisive tongues and their line-drawing divisions. It is their most successful technique that allows them to rule over us by preventing greater unity among people. This allows them to skim off enormous wealth from the gross national product that actually belongs to all people. If it is important to you, forward this message to others. Unite with those you are ordered to hate, according to Goethe because this is the counter strategy of "the wise". We should not allow them to continue winning in the same way for the next thousand years.
Divide-and-rule.
Draw lines, then set the people up against each other.
If there is a problem, blame somebody else.
That is the historical Albion's way.
Incredible how many can be deceived for so long.
Before 1945 it was mainly the British- and French Empires which kept conflicts alive by drawing lines in favor of one group over the other. Other Europeans and later the USA joined in ("collective West" as mutually beneficial cyclic dynamical systems of gain). The lines were often randomly drawn through tribes, through religious- or ethnic groups, to favor either the one, then the other. This created volatile hot spots of ethnic conflicts to use as pretext for intervention and occupation as the moral "rule maker". After 1945 the USA simply took over as "divider-in-chief".
The New Testament is the antithesis of the Old Testament with regards to the message. The ambiguity between the two books, hopping from one to the other, is exploited to confuse and mislead...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yup, I heard evil government's going to send in the military...
Good.
Maybe they should start beating and torturing random innocent Americans suspected of being naughty, as they have been doing in other places in the world for years, and years...
Good.
Popcorn and chips for the rest of the world.
Chickens coming home to roost....
"Residents of Fallujah called them "the Murderous Maniacs" because of how they treated Iraqis in detention. They were soldiers of the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division...
One officer and two non-commissioned officers (NCOs) of the 82nd Airborne who witnessed abuse, speaking on condition of anonymity, described in multiple interviews with Human Rights Watch howtheir battalion in 2003-2004 routinely used physical and mental torture as a means of intelligence gathering....
According to their accounts, the torture and other mistreatment of Iraqis....
Military Intelligence personnel, they said, directed and encouraged army personnel to subject prisoners to forced, repetitive exercise, sometimes to the point of unconsciousness...
At least one interrogator beat detainees in front of other soldiers.
Soldiers also incorporated daily beatings of detainees in preparation for interrogations."
[hrw.org]
But, of course, only "bad people" will get targeted.
If history teaches us one thing, it is "beware of what you wish for..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Today, globalists (previously internationalism) steer it all by using the systems they favor, via support (various means, direct/indirect) via age-old strategies of power.
It's all about control, not winning. "Winning" is what they have convinced you, the reader of this essay, as being "important" (sic.) as the narrative. For them at the tops of the pyramids of power as the true winners it is not important, because as long as one has a geographical systemic advantage of power, everything is a win even if you (the reader) lose everything. This attempt to morph an entire country/system failed in China, accompanied by a suitable narrative: the reality is that the attempt to "gain the centre of the chessboard" (strategy) via a pro-Western oligarchy, failed (symbolized by the "Fall of Jack Ma"), same as it did in Russia at the same time (roughly post-2010). Of course, the GLOBALIST WEST would have loved to have a GLOBALIST EAST, ruled by the money elites. Instead, the governments in Russia and China recognized the strategy, and toppled this slow-running, step-by-step, ratchet principled slow takeover hidden coup d'etat. The USA/collective West will never forgive them.
For the top tiers, wiggle into a position of total hegemony (internationalism/globalism) from which CONTROL can be effected and then divide and rule over everybody else.
This specifically means NO widespread global systemic peace because peace would lay the foundation for widespread unity in other systems.
They use tools, usually bought and paid for, within the global revolutionary spirit to implement the divide and rule strategy.
They steer you as finger pointing tools to rant obscenities at the people you hate, and chant slogans about the man-made systems you love...
The ring which rules them all is the USA and their tools, the new post-1945 so-called collective West (as Roman-era system of global rule, via subsystems).
ALL it needs is a GEOGRAPHICAL position of POWER.
Distance is POWER.
"Divide and conquer, the most basic maxim of empires." - Jeffrey Sachs
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The concept of an "occupation" seems to be hard to grasp.
The landgrabs after the 6-Day War were illegal according to international law. Waging a "preventive war" or a "war of choice" was not illegal, but all the subsequent landgrabs were.
According to international law, these territories are therefore still "occupied".
" ...We had three wars which we fought without an alternative. The first, the war of independence, which began on Nov. 30, 1947 and lasted until January 1949 ...The second war of no alternative was the Yom Kippur War and the war of attrition that preceded it ... Our other wars were not without an alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice ... In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation." -- Menachem Begin, Aug. 8, 1982, Israeli National Defense College
Begin stated clearly that Israel had fought three wars before which it had a "choice," meaning Israel started the wars. In legal terms, this is known as "preventive war," which is not illegal. However, taking land against international law after such a war, is illegal. Note that fluffy language like "in the noblest sense of the word," highlighted above, is not a legal term but gangsta talk.
Israel is still the occupying power.
That is what the law states. One can whine about laws, but that doesn't change a law. Everything one can come up with in defense of Israel, will automatically mean apologia for the occupying force. Everything one states, either ignores or apologizes for the stronger side in a conflict, which is enforcing an illegal occupation.
Every conversation which does not stress the fact that one side is the occupier, the other side the resistance, is biased towards imperialism.
Every news report must start with explaining who the occupation power is, so as not to confuse the timeline.
1
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment.[1] The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking,[2] and accordingly, a critical thinker is one who practices the skills of critical thinking or has been schooled in its disciplines.[3] Richard W. Paul has suggested that the mind of a critical thinker engages both the intellectual abilities and personal traits necessary for critical thinking.[4] Critical thinking presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism[5][6] and sociocentrism." (Wiki)
"In that context (not a ref. to the above but a previous chapter in the book), how America "manages" Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 percent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about 60 percent of the world's GNP and about threefourths of the world's known energy resources. Eurasia is also the location of most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. After the United States, the next six largest economies and the next six biggest spenders on military weaponry are located in Eurasia. All but one of the world's overt nuclear powers and all but one of the covert ones are located in Eurasia. The world's two most populous aspirants to regional hegemony and global influence are Eurasian. All of the potential political and/or economic challengers to American primacy are Eurasian. Cumulatively, Eurasia's power vastly overshadows America's. Fortunately for America, Eurasia is too big to be politically one..." THE GRAND CHESSBOARD American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski
Critical question.
If that is the realisation, then what is the strategy to avoid that?
Ahem..."manages"...
Last time I checked, "thoughts and prayers" are neither a strategy, nor a management style.
What Brzezinski fails to elaborate on in his book, is that his "periphery" of states stretching from South East Asia, via the Indian subcontinent, through Africa and from there to South America, just like Great Britain and the U.S.A. was once the "periphery" of Europe...
1
-
1
-
Historically in East Asia, India and China were the biggest losers as outsiders came with the divide-and-rule technique of power (Era of Western Imperialism).
If one understands what happened to China during their "Century of Humiliation," means that one then already has the template to understand what is happening today. One can use the historical "template" and apply it in the same manner.
What happened to China during that era, is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today. Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the little minions benefiting from the outside POWER of imperialism to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) crises into "eternal problems," sit by and do nothing as problems foment into violence, revolutions, and wars, or carry out other forms of privatized interference (corporatism) under government protection, or without. Whatever works, details really REALLY DON'T MATTER. Once "fomented troubles" rise out of hand, claim to "just want peace." Then use the little minions as favourites (favouritism = a technique within the "divide and rule" strategy of power) to destabilize an entire region, steer them against other weaker entities, and/or employ them as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regions as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc.
Whatever works for the desired region to be divided/conquered or where CONTROL and domination is required for the economic systems of gain.
There is no way that current day Chinese leaders will not have learnt their very own historical lesson, and allow their very own history to repeat/rhyme, and allow such outside meddling in the own systems to gain traction, AGAIN for a second time.
Every nation or state has its own "Never again!"
European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonial ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon. These citizens, usually around 50% of entire populations, suffer directly ("heating or eating"), or indirectly (soaring inflation), these are all "effects," not to be confused with "causes" (see concept of retro causality, one of the most easily misused ways to skew a timeline of events). Some eventually even end up in the muddy trenches.
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their (temporary) GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
With re. to how tools are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also, that a "plan" and the strategy to effect the plan, are two different things.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as the USA implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combatted by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today, and there is MORE than sufficient evidence for this. Outsiders intent on playing the game, use the revolutionary spirit, in order to hop onto useful dissent, strengthen it, and insert levers which they can pry open to gain own advantages. Beijing is certainly 100% aware of this, so everything you are witnessing today is a political EFFECT, not a political "cause" as some leaders wish to mislead us towards.
Everything you are being told about Berlin, in stages after 1894, 1904, 1907, and 1912, with gathering momentum, were EFFECTS, not CAUSES. That was, based on observation, outside powers with the intention to "divide and rule" Europe, by encroaching/encircling the major continental power, which has never changed throughout recent modern history. The ONLY factor which changed over the last few centuries, was the "major continental power" which had to be CONTROLLED by the outside power who wanted a competitive advantage. The historical parallel, is the "Chinese Century of Shame"-historicity, and is well-known at least to the 1.4 billion inhabitants of China today. Certainly, they also do not wish to become "carved up" and ruled over by outsiders again, for a second time. The template therefore predicts a similar outcome, that of the more encroachment/encirclement, the more likeliness of the "breakout attempt" in some possible future.
Obvious solution for a more stable world, stop the encroachment/encirclement.
Both historically (post-1900) as well as our recent history (post-2000) there seems little incentive for those with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to do so, but rather the repeated attempts to search for tools to do such encroachment/encirclement FOR the outside power/s intent on gain.
Empires do not become dominant because they hand out candy and bouquets of flowers, as most realists are fully aware of, therefore the wise advice to always keep a just/wise "balance of powers. If not, fail.
Power flows to where the attention goes first, in geopolitics, in the form of political policies.
These can be studied by looking at the events themselves, not what another human being tells you (incl. this essay, which doesn't tell you anything, but implores you to start focusing on the well-known events themselves, from which one can then infer the underlying hidden policies, strategies, or objectives).
If you live in East Asia, beware of the "dividers".
The hawks will come looking for "buck catchers" and the doves will disguise it as the "helping friends"-narrative = i.e. the template of modern western imperialism. Hawks and doves working in close unison, although stated as being opposite poles.
They WILL come to you, same way as they came to the Ukraine, following the 1990s.
China has "understood".
India thinks it can "play the game" like France once did in Europe (becoming a "buck catcher" for the British Empire and USA), post-1900.
Do you agree with this macro analysis?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The distorters of history lie about everything. Even the Bible they claim to love so much....
When one does wrong, it doesn't matter how one justifies these wrongs.
Or, the true meaning of the Biblical "reap the whirlwind".
In the Bible (Hosea), Israel allied with the devil (Assyria), rather than trust in God, and subsequently lost their worldly "empire" (Hosea).
The biblical wisdom of not allying with evil (Stalin/communism) has been distorted over time, to become a justification for own actions ("reap the whirlwind" = punishment).
A fallacy.
It is only half the story, or "lying by omission".
Because "evil" has even less scrupples than oneself, and therefore allying with evil will mean that one will get screwed over by the devil one has allied with.
Read Hosea.
Even if one is an atheist, these wisdoms are based on thousands of years of human observations.
By own admission, GB allied with the devil (Stalin), and then set off to destroy the German people, rather than letting the two devils (Hitler and Stalin) "slug it out" to mutual destruction on the Eastern Front, while concentrating on the own priorities (Western Desert, Battle of the Atlantic, etc.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Military enterprises are the most effective means of keeping a people occupied, for nothing arouses their interest so much as an important war…. Everyone who is able is ready to play his part either in council or in action, and all discontent is vented on the common enemy. The rest of the people either follow the camp to bring supplies, and to perform other necessary services, or remain at home to offer prayers and vows to God for ultimate victory; or, at least are so stirred by expectation and by news of the progress of the war that there is no place for thoughts of revolt in their minds. In thought or in deed, everyone is pre-occupied by the war." — Giovanni Botero
4 Horsemen of history:
- War (by paid stooges)
- Conquest (by proxy)
- Famine (far away)
- De@th (apologized for by those in search of gain)
According to Richard Overy all wars have as their basis four core objectives. Resources, belief (incl. ideology), pursuit of power, security issues, or combinations of these, or in combination with various other minor considerations.
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The current marching route of the empire, for the current recent and relevant past (aka "living history" as being a generation or two) which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching and marching, and morphing and morphing, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
They implement the divide-and-rule technique of power.
Sow division, reap gains.
Those "horsemen" (strategists) who sow, do not care what follows in their wake.
1
-
1
-
1
-
During the 19th Century, the Ottoman Empire was famously called "the sick man of Europe".
By the 1930s, the new "sick men" were London and Paris, desperately trying to hold on to empires, long after the days of "empires" were over.
All the events of the 1930s could be called "a bed they made for themselves at Versailles", and in 1939 they had to sleep in it.
In 1919 there were 2 who were not invited (Germany and the new SU), and in 1939 there were 2 (note, two, not one) who challenged the New World Order set up at Versailles...
Stalin gave Hitler a "blank cheque" to invade Poland.
Hitler gave Stalin a "blank cheque" to invade Poland, the Baltic States, Finland, and Romania.
And there was another world war.
1
-
1
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
Elsewhere, wars were instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, leading to disunity in the world, for the advantage of the dividers, in the USA.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power, or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power.
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Canonized in ideological frameworks:
"We" (ingroup) are always on the right/good side, regardless of what we do.
"They" (outgroup) are always on the wrong/bad side, because of what they do.
Theories based on good vs bad leave a lot of room for bias and interpretation depending on the vantage point of the storytellers of history. These stories are therefore overwhelmingly subjective, and therefore appeal to the emotions of an audience.
On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: The theory is a systemic analysis which is overwhelmingly neutral and objective and is therefore a dull topic to most people on the planet.
Why "dull"? Because people want to hear "stories". The theory, however, is not a "story".
It states how intentions lead to effects.
At its core level, the theory states that throughout history there were two opposing forces in action when it comes to the concept of gain. All other human interaction when it comes to the topic of gain are subject to this. These opposing forces are not the commonly held truism as being the forces of good vs. bad/evil, but rather those forces which wish to unite to create their own systemic concord, using a variety of techniques, and those forces which gain from division, using a variety of techniques of power.
What evolves out of that as causal chain of events is then the friction, which is created as these opposing forces collide, which then fosters the emergence of narratives of good and evil, by providing the catalyst (human nature). Note: words have definitions and meanings and context matters, not only when it is beneficial from their own standpoint.
Every single struggle for power ever, every single crisis about a man-made system ever, and every single war ever, has arisen out of these two opposing forces of concord/discord (causality). Anybody may of course try to find exceptions to this rule, and will find none, unless one engages in typical human behavioral patterns.
Name the struggle, and one can point out whether it arose out of the attempt to create concord, or discord. Every single good vs. bad narrative (the "stories" people tell themselves, as they are creating systemically useful "ingroups and outgroups") ever has arisen from this very simple axiom.
On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: At its most fundamental core, the theory states that where there are intentions by systems to create unity, the opposing forces to such unity, or systemic actors, would then try to divide observed forces of unity, using key strategies, and vice-versa: where intentions of trying to create division are observed by actors trying to create unity in systems, key strategies are employed to overcome these divisions, to achieve unity in a system. These take place at the same time, making a timeline difficult to assess, contributing to the favoring of pleasing narratives for own causes, as a way of convincing large numbers of people.
Like a double-helix, these forces envelope the timeline of history. It does not HAVE a "start" or "stop."
The tier of interaction is irrelevant, and where there is an intention of achieving systemic gain, the strategies will closely resemble each other: from the micro- to the most macro level of all: International Relations.
1
-
1
-
In the beginning, one nation's leaders made another nation's people "the default rival in peace/default enemy in war" as a matter of policy.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany, available for download as PDF file]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war.
And so the policy makers set off to encroach upon and surround their own chosen "default rival" with a ring of "temporary best friends"...
And so the biblical "seeds" were sown, which Europe had to "reap" later.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trying to remain neutral in the face of a grand strategy by global players is futile if the players intend to outwit each other by using people as "tools" on the "chessboards. The bigger picture can be distorted, and reality can be manipulated to deceive millions of people. The history of the encirclement policy of a Eurasian superpower repeated itself after 1990.
The intent of the hegemonic power is to "transform" the smaller systems into tools of encirclement (proxies) or "unsinkable aircraft carriers" for its own systemic control or expansion. Then produce the entire story as "protecting freedom/friends/democracy," a "fight for freedom," or some other story that sounds good in Hollywood (a "bread and circuses" strategy for the domestic masses).
HISTORY RHYMING
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American century after 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
For the "divider," the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How"* and "that" are different premises in the syntax games they play on the plebs...
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategist who openly admit this.
The conflagration that took place after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907).
set up against:
2) the continental alliances, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after 1990 (Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primary" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim. Written down, for all to see.) and this time the "targets" of the global strategy were not Central Europe, but rather China and Russia. Only this time the new rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves.
1
-
Who "wanted to rule the world"?
Every "empire" eventually turns into what they accuse others of being (projection).
1) In 1907 Kaiser Wilhelm said: "Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."
Such words written down without the intention of ever becoming public, give a clear indication of intent...
Believe me, it means nothing.
You WILL change your mind regarding "what it sounds like", in less than 2 minutes.
2) After WW2, German strategist envisioned a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" to control: Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under German supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" (sic.) for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.). German strategists even suggested that "the destroyed parts of Europe might get a psychological lift from the project of exploiting" (sic.) Africa."
Of course the Germans were simply thinking about the psychology of the beaten and battered, and how good it must feel to be at least "able to kick down" if ones own future looks bleak.
Perfectly OK strategy, believe me...
You WILL change your mind regarding "waht it sounds like", in less than a minute, if you continue reading...
3) At the same time, German strategists seemed to favor the idea that since there was a lack of civilized origins in Southern and Eastern Europe ... "and since the processes of government are destined to operate for a long time in the future, in many of these countries, in ways which are strange and uncongenial to Germans ... Berlin should make no moral distinctions with respect to local governments, whether they are democratic in nature or authoritarian ... only an examination of German interests at stake not just political, but economical as well ... should be in order when assessing foreign relations in Southern and Eastern Europe. Moltke goes on to recommend the naked exertion of German national power in influencing the behavior of new states, short of the use of military force, while downplaying the multilateral binding obligations that might result from the new systems system of Conferences." (loosely quoted)
Of course in the minds of such strategists, it is the people's own fault if their destiny was to become only superficially "quasi independent/sovereign" states, with own leaders to be dominated and directed as mere German puppets, and the people controlled by a police state financed from and by Berlin (and a few other "chosen few"). If some "scraps" fall off the richly-lain tables at home, onto the locals they should not complain, but be happy about such scraps...
In such a system, everybody in power understood that disloyalty would be met by immediate repercussions: a little "regime change invasion" here, and coup there, or propaganda campaigns of "discontent" funded from outside, or "disgrunted masses" suddenly finding themselves funded by sh*tloads of cash from secret slush funds...all depepending on what strategy best suited the country and times.
All with the subtle "message" to all others to "be nice, or else..."
Of course, all of the above were simply "ideas floated" on how to control "lesser people" so that 3% or 4 % of the population in this sphere of influence (so-called "Grand Area") can then control 50% of the wealth contained here.
Nothing wrong with that of course, since such instincts of greed are normal, as we shall see.
The "plan" to "rule the world" is of course based on loosely gathered strings of information from official and inofficial sources (incl. NGOs), strung together into a giant story.
For the average readers/viewer, the quotes above are of course part of "a plan" or "the perfect evidence" of how Germans wanted to "rule the world", and subdue the British Empire, their biggest rival.
Only...
...the words...
Are not German.
The first paragraph was made by Woodrow Wilson, one of the world's biggest advocates of imperialism/white supremacy (whilst hiding behind a "an image" of being a liberal/idealist) and taken from a unpublished paper of 1907, as quoted in The Rising American Empire (1960) by Richard Warner Van Alstyne, p. 201.
Wilson of course was simply looking at what had happened the past 200 years as the original "13 colonies", first fought for independence, and then started going N.E.W.S. (North/East/West/South), brushing away all in its path. They wouldn't stop going, until they bumped up against European imperialism, their biggest rivals.
The second and third paragraphs were taken from a series of Washington DC "strategy papers": "During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed."
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this."
(taken from, in parts: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive Diplomático y escritor)
NOTE:
Parts 1), 2) and 3) in the first half were taken verbatim from US leaders, and only changed to mask the country of origin. I did this to make a point, which is hopefully understood...
These strategies by leaders who "wanted to rule the world" is simply a part of that "1%" of history which just does not make it to the mainstream for wider audiences...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Today of course we are being told, that Turkey has been blocking Finnland's NATO entry bid because "of Kurdish terrorists"...
Of course we don't know what is really discussed behind closed doors and we might have to wait 20-30 years to discover "what really happened" (20/30 Year Rules with regards to freedom of information). In the meantime, we must simply believe our leaders and our news pundits, who simply point at current events, because they know the answers to everything...
Reality?
The current "NATO dilemma" is the end effect of entirely avoidable "chains of events" aka "causality": the result of an entirely avoidable series of escalation "starting" around the year 2000.
Today the "evil Turkey blocking poor little Finnland from joining NATO", is accompanied by the finger pointing "evil dictators"-narratives, as a nation subsides into more and more economic woes, and turns to "dear leaders" as they weaken and suffer more and more personal negative effects.
Does that sound even vaguely familiar?
Any historical parallels?
Re. "blocking NATO expansion".
Just like there are "art fans" who hoard stolen treasures in secrets caverns only they know of, just for the kick of it, I'm sure Erdogan has his own "secret cavern" in which he hoards his own personal revenge.
The "price tag" will be high.
Very high, and it is determined by previous actions.
That's how the world works.
Too bad Europe kept the "carrot" of EU-membership always just that tiny little bit outside of the reach of the mouth of Turkey (around the year 2000, "carrot and stick"-strategy), until not only the modern western pro-EU Turkish population living here lost all hope, but the time also came when liberal and progressive Turkish politicians and media also lost all domestic support.
A long-held dream of finally (after many years of political reforms) achieving the status of "Europeans", within arms reach.
Alas, never achieving the goal.
"Close enough" to being Europeans, was just never "good enough".
Always "just do a bit more" year after year after year, until all hope was finally eclipsed by more conservative wings in Turkish politics and society in an effect called "backlash", also known as "blowback" (politics).
The "never my fault"-Europeans making the same mistake all over again.
Turkey was of course safe in a military sense (NATO), but what was lacking was the prospect of economic growth, and access to an enormous common market (EU) of course offered the prospect of domestic growth (vice-versa, simplified trade and more markets for European goods offered by some 80 million people).
The end effect is that today, outside powers (mainly Russia and the USA) were provided with a healthy foundation of discontent to build their future strategies upon, and Europe loses again and again and again...
Google: "the USA and the weaponisation of global finance/Turkey" or similar key words.
A modus operandi.
The "weapon of choice" of a country/state in a superior geographical location, and with a superior financial and economic base.
(unfortunately, the website doesn't allow for quoting selected passages from the article).
Turkey is just another "color revolution" in the making, in a long string of previous "color revolutions" sowing death and destruction in their wake wheever they went. Rivers of blood, rather than the revered and praised "democracy seeds" (George Bush) blossoming a brighter future...
Note how the "seeds of democracy", sown by such organisations as the NED, are rarely followed by much in the form of effective "watering/nurturing" of the resulting "plants". From that, one can conclude that "successful democracies" are not always the desired effect of own meddling in the affairs of little nations, but rather part of a grander strategy. The location of the countries in which meddling takes place, is far more important than the fact that meddling takes place.
Anyway.
Did anybody seriously think Ankara doesn't know what Washington DC has been up to these last couple of years?
And to all the "throw Turkey out of NATO"-advocates.
That would be exactly what Putin would want: after some three centuries of trying to get unhindered access to the Med for the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Putin could then potentially score a victory where 300 years of Russian leaders have failed.
Ankara permitting, he could fill in the resulting "gap", with own steps and offers.
"Dissed Turkey" can then sell a potential alliance offer for a good price: cheap Russian oil (because nobody else wants it), cheap grains, and other cheap raw materials.
Maybe even a completely reorganized financial basis, before the "unfortunate anger of the streets" sets in with a colorful revolution as currently desired by the "alpha"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TropicalCoder For context:
“As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true,” Chow wrote. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman.”
“Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
Again, Christians try to define what "right", and then cry foul if they are called out for their narrow mindedness....
Nobody asked her to give a sermon, and quite frankly, people are tired of it.
Nobody has to listen to anybody's personal opinions about "right vs wrong".
The founding fathers drafted the Declaration of Independence, that grants every American the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and hapiness "
Yup, that trumps your or mine, or some random Christian's preaching opinion any day...
1
-
99 % of the comments here don't understand simple rules about what being American is about...
As a real American, you keep your opinions to yourself, and don't try to impose yourself onto others.
There is a simply rule in politics, known as "separation of church and state".
Chow should simply have abstained from voting, and kept her personal opinions to herself. Nobody would have cared.
Instead, she chose to link her personal belief system, to a political decision she made...yup, and that is exactly why millions of people once immigrated to the USA, to escape the bigotry of Europe...lol, honestly, the irony...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemon.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quiet or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
Just claim hero status for the self, and blame everybody else for everything which goes wrong.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Already predicted. Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
------------------------------------------
Footnote
With Europe set up against Russia, the USA will pivot to Asia (already the strategy since Obama).
We are supposed to admire them, but they never give anything of geopolitical/grand strategy value back. Ever. Ratchet principle.
1
-
4:24 minutes
Russian collusion is real.
The fact that it cannot be proven, doesn't mean that it isn't reality.
Because there is something known as geopolitics, and the USA needs Russia.
In the late-19th Century, France fought back against the German attempts to isolate it politically, by cordoning off Germany and the Central Powers with a ring of alliance partners.
France, in the west, a hostile Russia in the east. GB's Royal Navy in the position to cut off the north sea ports, in case of war. That only left a small corridor of access either through Serbia, or Austria-Hungary's ports in the Adriatic (threatened by British hegemony over Greece).
Today, we see a similar US strategy concerning China.
Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines controlling sea access to the east. Trump playing it nice with Putin/Russia, would cut off the north-west/north-east. A more hostile India, will cover the south-west sector...almost there. That only leaves a narrow corridor of access to the south, in the South China Sea.
History might not always be 100% the same, but it certainly rhymes.
Remember "little rocket man"?
The "little rocket man" who heads a Chinese client state called North Korea?
The moment the "little rocket man" dumb sh*t started, everyone with at least 2 brain cells could put 2 and 2 together.
Chy-naah was going to get encircled.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Start pulling the rug from underneath their feet...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The REAL aim is China.
Russia, eventually "carved up" into smaller pieces and turned into future minions, is simply the means to an end.
Korea, Vietnam, Ukraine...
Will the little minions ("buck catchers" in strategy) ever learn?
Those who eagerly "carve up" others, even along arbitrary human-made boundaries on a map, dividing individuals, organisations, families, and businesses, are unlikely to agree with being "carved up" by someone else.
Korea was divided by imperialists during World War II (with the cooperation of the imperialist Allied camp) without consulting the local population about their priorities.
A few years later, they attempted the same in Vietnam, using the ongoing war of independence as a pretext (marketed as "the USA saving the world from communism"). This effort was unsuccessful.
The true objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China
According to Wikipedia: "Main article: China containment policy. As articulated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-term strategic initiative to encircle Beijing with the USSR and its satellite states, as well as: The Japan–Korea front, The India–Pakistan front, and The Southeast Asia front. Although President Johnson claimed that the goal of the Vietnam War was to ensure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a memorandum from January 1965 by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton indicated that an underlying justification was "not to assist a friend, but to contain China". On November 3, 1965, Secretary of Defense McNamara sent a memorandum to Johnson, outlining "major policy decisions regarding our course of action in Vietnam". The memorandum begins by revealing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965: 'The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they support a long-term United States policy to contain China. McNamara accused China of having imperial ambitions similar to those of the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States: 'China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30s, and like the USSR in 1947—emerges as a significant power threatening to undermine our importance and effectiveness globally and, more distantly but more ominously, to unite all of Asia against us.'
Note that this is a common tactic in international relations: accuse the "other side" of actions that one is undertaking oneself. The strategy of divide-and-rule is kept hidden, while the opposing side is accused of having malicious intentions, without providing any actual evidence (the concept of "accusation without proof"). To encircle China, the United States aimed to establish "three fronts" as part of a "long-term effort to contain China": 'There are three fronts to a long-term effort to contain China (recognising that the USSR "contains" China to the north and northwest): (a) the Japan–Korea front; (b) the India–Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.'
Later, McNamara acknowledged that containing China would ultimately cost America a considerable amount of time, money, and lives. As is often the case, "extending" a rising rival power incurs "expenses", including lives, which is why the intention is to create proxies in artificial entities like "South Vietnam" to carry out such containment for the dominant power.
This is divide-and-rule.
Favouritism, or the "paid/supported proxy", can be employed during peacetime to undermine rivals or wage subversive warfare, or during wartime to reduce costs and losses while gaining systemic advantages after a "victory". When a proxy fails to achieve this "extension of the rival", it is quickly abandoned or discarded to cut the "investment", and a new proxy is sought. This pattern was evident in the 1930s: in 1939, the "first proxy" identified was Poland, and when Poland failed to "extend Germany" for a prolonged period, it was decided to provoke either Germany or the USSR to invade Scandinavia (Plan R4). Ideally, both Germany and the SU would invade Scandinavia, leading to a potential clash there, distracting attacks away from the heartlands. While Great Britain and France still cooperated, this was straightforward: both would benefit if the war "pivoted away" from Western Europe/British Isles into Scandinavia. If the attention could be focused somewhere else on the map, a Battle of Britain and a Battle of France could potentially be avoided, if the Germans became bogged down in Scandinavia for example...
That did not occur.
However.
Align with such individuals at your own risk.
They do not adhere to the Christian values they consistently boast as being "oh-so-superior" and worthy of admiration...
North Korea/South Korea (implemented "unsinkable aircraft carrier").
North Vietnam/South Vietnam (intention/failure).
East Ukraine/West Ukraine (in progress).
Always the same playbook.
The modus operandi has been consistent since 1776: advancing onto another power's borders (systematically), also through proxies, then blaming those who are encroached upon/encircled if they react, or blaming the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War advance began in the 1990s, so even if the Trump administration did not initiate the "marching order", it is a fact that he did not halt it either when he had the chance during his first term (2017-2021). This can be examined as empirical evidence (observation/map) which clarifies who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should avoid engaging with debaters who base their theories on ideology or emotions, especially not if the advocate reveals themselves as dogmatic, prone to logical fallacies or cognitive biases. Such individuals are not interested in outcomes but wish to make "debates" go in circles indefinitely, obfuscating, side-lining, and finger-pointing to evade the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current trajectory of the empire, which began when the USSR faced economic decline in the late 1980s, with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the advance)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the advance)
Continuously advance, trampling over one red line after another, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). If anything negative occurs, and lives are lost, always blame someone else. This type of imperialist behaviour, as demonstrated by Washington DC and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not begin solely after World War II. This marching order has been in place since 1776, with the first victims being neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territories were coveted. That was followed by Spain in the 1890s (put into action in 1898) whose desirable territories would create a link between the USA and East Asia.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries so that any economic surplus generated by that country is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US government, and especially to US bondholders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It remains the same today as it has since 1776.
The reality is that neither Trump nor any previous administration has halted this (systemic) "slow march" of systemic expansion, whilst getting the "buck catcher" to pick up the tab if things don't turn out as strategized.
Be cautious of the ideologically indoctrinated: Like a child, they confidently repeat things they do not know to be true.
The "three frontlines" mentioned in grand strategy, to encroach and encircle a rival power, is history rhyming after 1900 and after 2000.
Around the year 1900, the "three frontlines" in times of peace were:
- eastern frontline (Russia, with France 1891-1894)
- western frontline (France, with Russia or the "2-front war danger" for the multi-lingual/multi-ethnic "encircled", 1891 - 1894)
- the North Sea and global oceans (1907, as the British Empire aligned with the encirclers)
USA: on the "fence", just "eating popcorn"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump is a liar.
Every single POTUS since the 1990s could have stopped this war.
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe (the exchange between Matlock and Kissinger).
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route, see below)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
THE MARCHING ROUTE OF THE EMPIRE
Summary under the video description of a UCLA video of an interview between Henry Kissinger and Jack Matlock:
"The 1994 discussion between Henry Kissinger and Jack Matlock revolved around the contentious issue of NATO expansion and its implications for U.S.-Russia relations and Eastern Europe's stability. The debate was set against the backdrop of Russian opposition, articulated by President Boris Yeltsin, who warned that expanding NATO could lead to a "cold peace" and further isolate Russia. Kissinger supported NATO expansion as a necessary step to ensure the security and sovereignty of Central European countries like Poland and Hungary. He argued that delaying expansion could create a geopolitical vacuum, leaving these nations vulnerable to influence from both Germany and Russia. Kissinger viewed NATO as a stabilizing force and an "insurance policy" against future uncertainties, emphasizing that such moves need not antagonize Russia if managed through diplomatic and military assurances. Matlock, however, cautioned against hasty expansion, noting that Russia's current weakness did not pose an immediate military threat. He believed that NATO expansion might inflame nationalist sentiments within Russia, complicating its internal politics and its path toward democracy. Instead, he argued for prioritizing economic integration of Eastern European nations into the European Union and maintaining diplomacy to address Russian concerns. The conversation highlighted differing perspectives on balancing security, diplomacy, and the risks of escalating tensions in post-Cold War Europe."
Arguing "two sides of the same fence", which was systemic expansion into Eastern Europe, using Russia's weakness after the fall of the USSR. The good cop arguing for the slow-paced systemic expansion to avoid creating discomfort in another system, whilst the bad cop was arguing for a "rapid expansion to avoid another power filling a power vacuum".
It is indeed easy to overlook the fact that both were arguing for the same thing though, which was "systemic expansion" in a new territory.
The marching route of the empire.
Trump is just another imperialist empire fanboy catering to imperialist/militarists back home.
Misguided fools, all of them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@annablume8147 I thank you.
I would have liked to add a further comment, regarding how far our democracies/capitalist systems have become infiltrated by psychopaths, and lead by the weaklings who bow down to them, but apparrently YouTube has "ghost banned" that essay.
Maybe search for:
"21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths. Only 21%?" (source: was.hingto.n.p.ost do.t c...om ... news Sept. 2016).
Note, that most studies range from between 4% and 25% psycho saturation rate, but are conclusive that this rate is far higher than national averages of around 1% of the population. There is therefore no reason to believe other strongholds of power, like politics, do not attract similar high percentages of suitors.
***"Psychopathy is a condition characterized by the absence of empathy and the blunting of other affective states. Callousness, detachment, and a lack of empathy enable psychopaths to be highly manipulative. Nevertheless, psychopathy is among the most difficult disorders to spot. Psychopaths can appear normal, even charming. Underneath, they lack any semblance of conscience. Their antisocial nature inclines them often (but by no means always) to criminality..." source: Psychopathytoday
***"Lobaczewski devoted his career to studying the relationship between personality disorders and politics. He concluded that individuals with disorders such as psychopathy and narcissistic personality disorder are strongly attracted to power and often constitute the governments of nations. He defined pathocracy as, 'a system of government created by a small pathological minority that takes control over a society of normal people.' In my earlier posts, I suggested that there was a danger of the United States government becoming a pathocracy. I think it is safe to say that this has now transpired." source: psycho.logy to day c o m
***"In psychology, there is a concept of a “dark triad” of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism... There’s a great deal of evidence that people with dark triad personalities are attracted to the corporate and political worlds. Research, for example, shows that people with narcissistic and psychopathic traits have a strong desire for dominance and are disproportionately common in leadership positions." source: thecon ver..sa..tio n. c o m
rgds
1
-
1
-
How history rhymes...
Meanwhile, after more than two years Boris Johnson has admitted that the war in the Ukraine is a proxy war for US/collective Western interests, and Vladimir Zelensky has stated that "there are those in the West who don't mind a long war [in Ukraine]" to extend Russia, using his peoples as tools for the gain of outsiders who drool over the profits (Mitch McConnell), or lust after the systemic expansion possible as result of great upheavals amongst human beings. Does this take the wind out of the sails of the "paid Putin puppet"-screamers, blindly chanting their MSM narratives against those who have said this from day 1? Not at all. In order to fit their world views, these tools will deny reality, rattle down the narrative to a point of making total fools of themselves. They would now have to believe that Boris Johnson, or Vladimir Zelensky are "paid Putin puppets", in order to square a circle...
This is exactly what is meant with fools arguing their way into the trenches their own leaders have deceived them into.
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Imperialists are again, after a short break, "organizing" their "violence" as the imperialistic aim and goal. To attain the rule (de jure) and domination (de facto) of the own systems OVER other independent systems which were in any particular place in the world first (aka a given status quo on the timeline of history).
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do."
Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
Their most powerful strategy is the tried and successful "divide and rule." Beware!
Qui bono?
Correct, the upper 1% or so of society. Study what happened in the past, and you can foresee the future of the USA.
What did British elites, their 1%-ters, do as the "Empire" collapsed around them after WW2?
Correct answer: they took their assests to the tax havens they had already created for themselves, leaving the rest of British society to try and pick the cart out of the rut...
And there, America, is your future.
1
-
They don't ignore it.
They imply that US imperialism was "good imperialism".
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@becoming_a_historian218 Hitler had gained command of Germany by using the age-old technique of "divide and rule/conquer" on the primitive and weak system of German democracy which replaced the strong and centered system of monarchy per decree (Versailles) in 1918. Obviously, had a monarch still been in charge, any "Hitler"-type would have been kicked back into their rural backwaters, since power was focussed and on the lookout for such "rebels".
After having gained power by using "divide and rule", the Nazi were of course on the lookout for it being repeated after Versialles (Versailles, was of course simply a "divide and rule" policy, disguised as a "peace conference").
One of the signature moves of the "divide and rule"-system, is to set up mutiple opposing systems, often with overlapping competancies (can be easily "excused" as "furthering positive competitiveness").
When Chamberlain arrived in Munich, with the voiced intention to seek mutually agreeable solution for the "Czechoslovakian issue" (steered by the Nazi as "uprising"), Hitler instinctively recognized the London "divide and rule" setup in progress.
At Versailles, multiple "sytems" had been created, with random borders aimed to "give peace a chance", but with enough historical grievances built in to create a "fracture zone" of potential strife between Western Europe and the SU (search fot the concept of the "barrier state" or Limitrophe States).
In 1938, when Chamberlain arrived, with efforts to "manage/moderate/steer" the course of history, Hitler recognized the implementation of "divide and rule".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@walterCronkitesleftshoe6684 I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc...
Sorry to burst your bubble.
I've got some bad news for all you "never gonna fight"-fanboys.
YOU. WILL. GO.
Capturing the hearts and minds of the (mainly) young, rebellious, and easily-influenced, is a long-term goal of what W.T. Stead set out to do as the "Americanization of the World" (book) on all tiers: ideology, food, industrial products, movies, language, etc. Of course, what he didn't mention back then almost a hundred years ago when this global strategy started, was that this was in effect an old Roman-era strategy of power: to morph the conquered, to become "like Rome." Fill the bellies of the global masses ("Bread") and distract them with entertainment ("Circuses"), and then turn them into the tools of the empire.
Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy.
It gave whites ("Europeans") the basis of the power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other.
The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
Divide-and-rule was the advantage they thought they held 100 and 200 years ago, and they think it still is today.
There can be only 1 "winner". The others are the systemic "cannon fodder" for the gain of the few "buck passers".
Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything, nobody ever decided anything, everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The prefect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and finger-pointers...
Teach your children well...
Of course these hundreds of comments by Americans and Canadians mirror the comments made by hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favourite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the leadup to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power (in stages after 1890), in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) and their "buck-catchers", nodded off by the "buck passers" which hold the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed right through to today.
Whatever...
Guess who "wins"?
The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand).
The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction (MIRVs carrying nukes) as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
1
-
We in the west shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win). In other words, just as much Lend-Lease as needed, but not enough for the commie to storm all the way into Central Europe.
We should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary to aid D-Day, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why shouldn't it have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion?
Because we owed Stalin nothing.
Not single Jeep and not a single Studebaker truck, carrying commies into Central Europe by the millions.
Not a single drop of blood.
Stalin on the 19th August 1939, reported by meeting participants: "Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
So our leaders sacrificed untold scores of own soldiers, own resources, own empires, and millions of own dollars, to hand over half the world to the commies. Only to end up fighting them in the other half for the next fifty years. Korea, Vietnam, the ME, and hundreds of proxy wars from Central America to Africa. Thousands of more body bags of "our boys".
Rather silly to "help innocent and cute Uncle Joe Stalin", if we could have just let them "slug it out to utter exhaustion, and then march over the ruins, a fate Stalin had intended for us...
Ah...smart leaders.
Too bad we didn't have any.
There was Arthur "2 working brain cells" Harris who was "just following orders".
And Sir Charles "Mesopotamian kiddie terror bomber" Portal, must have jizzed his pants in fond recollection.
And, last but not least Winston "gas the Arab, Indians are beasts" Churchill, who thought that "flattening Germany" would leave a "Big Three" to rule the world. LOL.
Last time I checked, the Cold War had a "Big Two" and the totally bankrupt British Empire was squeezed out of existence.
Ah well.
Too bad.
Actions have consequences...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you live in a frontier fort composed of civilians, intended to surround a concentration camp, then what did these settler colonists expect? Neighbors who bring them candy and flowers?
Hamas was created by Israel with a divide and rule intention, to undermine the authority of the PLO. Search that and one will find hundreds of articles, incl. from Israeli sources, which will confirm this intentional Israeli strategy of deceit and division.
Gaza is the world's biggest concentration camp, ringed in by a cicle of Kibbutzim, inhabited by settler colonists. If you want to know what's going on, ask a Jwe. They will honestly tell you straight in your face, and dare you to resist: "We are a generation that settles the land, and without the steel helmet and the cannon's fire we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home.” Moshe Dayan
The intention is ethnic cleansing, and a pretext is needed to vacate the land under the terror of cannon fire, in order to create the next concentration camp, ringed in by the next ring of Kibbutzim, inhabited by the next selection of future "victims of terrorism"...
What you are witnissing today, is the own biblical "logic" of "reap as you sow". Israel INTENDED to "sow division" between the peoples of Palestine, and now they are "reaping" the effects. Not a nice personal tale, agreed, so sorry about the personal misfortune of living in a frontier fort, and choosing to become a tool of encirclement.
But the own personal decisions to live a life as soldiers of fortune, using the own families as a human shields, whilst surrounding an open-air concentration camp as a tool of strategic encirclement, sometimes have unhappy consequences...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrBallynally2 Sure. 😁
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
SETTLER COLONIALISM
The last 500 years of European/white settler colonialism as a subsection of the divide-and-rule technique. The strategy was "farms/forts" and a systemic, slow advance into the lands of ingenious peoples all over the world. Same happened in North America, Australia, New Zealand, the Levant, South America, Southern Africa, etc.
Broken promises, broken treaties, looking for excuses to make the next 'step' (ratchet principle). The only places the strategy of slow ponderous expansion failed was where the local systems were too numerous or organized (East Asia). The "template" might have various regional differences, but the end effect is always the same. Slow, step-by-step advance of the own ideology, economic systems, corporations and political power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@reasoningwithrema You can contribute a small share to justice, easy...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The point...
It's what happens if you make the wrong friends.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lies and hypocrisy are a dead giveaway of a divide-and-rule strategy. A strategy of divide-and-rule does not intend to be "fair", but sets out to impose unfair "rulings" top-down...
A 125 years ago Central Europe's neighboring regions set out to encircle and encroach on Germany and Austria-Hungary, something these states would never have found as acceptable, if done unto them by any coalition of powers. A clear cut case of hypocrisy.
Today the USA/collective West can only "win" if the rest of the world "loses" (zero sum reality of the globalized world).
The group that can divide all other groups, and avoid them from uniting into larger entities, will rule over all the others.
Such "rulings" are accompanied by acts of favor, or "favoratism," and favoratism is another dead giveaway of an active policy of divide-and-rule.
It's divide-and-rule/conquer.
They grew into North America using this technique, gained North American hegemony using this technique, gained global hegemony using this technique, and are now using the divide-and-rule technique as desperate attempt to hang on to global hegemony...
1
-
1
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage" see footnote), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. They would wait.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
-------------------------------
Footnote:
Note that according to Machiavelli, the "princes" connected to the land and who benefited from their hereditary rule were also the GATEKEEPERS and were connected to what they saw as theirs. Whether one likes this style of inherited wealth and power or not, their role was the gatekeepers of being the managers of own affairs. Opposed to that, in strategy and human nature, the "mercenary" is the OUTSIDER (internationalists/globalists) who came/come or the profit and gain and who are NOT "connected" to the land and its peoples at all, and place their own interests, often vested interests, BEFORE the people who live on the land. This narrative is often distorted today into meaning that "to be a Machiavelli is to be an a-hole" which is a distortion of what the book was about. Machiavelli states clearly to keep ones "princes" in POWER, for to lose them would mean losing the GATEKEEPERS, who via their own vested interests, also protect the people who live in entire regions of the world. Via Trojan Horses, "democracies" can be CAPTURED (culturally-, economically-, politically-, emotionally and militarily), as a process which can be studied as the actors reveal themselves through their actions/events. This can be studied as systemic analyses.
1
-
1
-
@AllAhabNoMoby There is a difference between the definitions of "mass killings" (your essay), and "mass shootings".
Same as there is a difference between "mass murders", and "mass killing".
Wiki has a good description, in case it really interests you.
Analysts of crime make these distinctions, so that they don't compare apples and pears.
Fact of the matter remains.
These US-style mass shootings (per definition, lone gunman/gunmen, random victims, no motive) are extremely rare in other parts of the world, and if one wishes to get to the root cause, one first has to define it.
In Europe it happens maybe once a year. In the US, around once a week.
Can't hide behind "statistics", bro...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS.
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Once there is an inpact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, and big business, and Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
1
-
1
-
How "divide and rule/conquer" is revealed by events, not by digging around in archives.
Wiki: "The Paris Economy Pact was an international economic agreement reached at the Paris Economic Conference, held from 14 June 1916 in Paris. The meeting, held at the height of World War I, included representatives of the Allied Powers: Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and Russia." After a "won war" (perspective of 1916), these powers plus their dominions, colonies, and the potential "liberated assets" of the defeated nations after the "won war"-scenario (German colonies, German naval vessels, markets and concessions,etc.), formed a ring of powerful European survivors (plus one upcoming power in Asia) almost encircling the USA (geopolitics).
After the USA joined the war in full force, Russia was soon out of this potential "alliance of the winners" after the November Revolution in 1917, without much outside input.
One down, 4 to go.
Next out was Italy, by sending her liberals running back home crying (Wilson sowing dissent between the "winners" from the inside, a means used in "divide and rule". In this case, by "ruling" that her favorite's secret deals counted more that the secret deals made with Italy)
Two down, 3 to go...
After GB was persuaded to "dump Japan" by replacing a binding defence alliance with a wishy-washy non-binding "4 power treaty" (more detail in the thread below)...
Three down, 2 left..."
All that was left was the "cordial" non-binding "Entente of 1904 (GB/France).
These two "no obligations, just friends" (GB/France), just happened to be "US favorites" too. More "no obligations, just friends" (favoratism, another means used in "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies).
Europe was divided again.
Just like 1914.
Wilson at Versailles is often hailed as the idealistic neutral who wanted to save Europe...
Reality?
He was there as a forerunner of the American Century.
He came, he saw, and [divided and] conquered.
Vini, vidi, vici in slow motion.
Then he left again.
The USA didn't sign anything.
The USA didn't join any "leagues" of nations.
The USA didn't tie its hands with any rules.
There were no obligations, except the "rules" written by an expansionist Washington DC in the background ("think tanks" and other centers of strategic research).
A few years later, at the Washington Conference, her navy was "on par" with GB/Empire.
From an obscure colony on the fringes to a "5-5-3-2-2" (GB/USA/Japan/France/Italy) division of naval power in a 150 years.
Wilson: "Look at them jojos...that's the way you do it, get your empire for nothing and division for free..." ;-)
He was no different to most previous US Presidents, who put the USA first.
And the "USA first" was best achieved by keeping those plucky Europeans divided.
1
-
Of course GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs.
Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent.
Of course, London already knew this.
That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem:
Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900).
And so "poor little Belgium" was born.
Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"...
France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war.
The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about turn mind-control trick :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first, and the truth had to be bent to fit the policy.
Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals.
It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up.
Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights".
It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why all the sick non-binding "promises" to the Ukraine.
It's divide-and-rule.
At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule.
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others...
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favouritism.
"Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Africa, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the behavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD"
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact. It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of. What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of those in search of profit and in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. For the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact that it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The French Fleet at Mers was no threat to the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of US corporate capitalism (Washington D.C.) and communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and had slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
So yes.
The superior geostrategists in Washington D.C. won.
No wonder, that the "smiling emperor" FDR was pleased with Churchill.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA and divide Europe and rule the world...
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
Regarding in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's leaders, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement, amongst other less "valuable" suitors (like Germany, see below comment), was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped in to avoid any form of continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below).
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises" :-)
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below comment explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
"Right or wrong" is of course easily and neutrally determined by "putting oneself in the shoes" of others.
When it came to "little nations being thrown to crocodiles", own interests came first.
Principles went overboard.
What aided in dividing Europe came first. The independence of little nations? Not so much...
Washington DC: "Principles like we showed in 1905? Nah. Let's ruffle some European feathers."
1
-
1
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened. The word "rule" also constitutes a "trigger", or natural aversion, which would mean psychologically oposing a theory, simply based on the words used.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please, lol.
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage (see below comments thread for a few). These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favoratism.
"Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
1
-
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Africa and the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in Africa and the ME) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Four corners of the globe. Same games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So Bomber "do our worst" Harris set off to flatten Germany, with a policy called Area Bombing, thereby ruining the financial foundation of the British Empire in the process.
Hadn't he heard of THE AMERICAN CENTURY?
Maybe they didn't have google back then.
Too bad...
So what was the "return on investment" for the Allied war machine?
What was the value of a policy of killing "enemy" civilians, and sending out bombers to level city centers?
How much bang for the buck did it result in.
Google, download and read:
BRITAIN 1939 – 1945: THE ECONOMIC COST OF STRATEGIC BOMBING
One can spend a few hours reading this....OR...I'll condense it into a few short lines:
The same people who started terror bombing civilians on a grand scale in Mesototamia in the 1920s (Churchill/Portal/Harris) thought that all one needed to do to "win" was to scale up the terror.
[Google: bbc(dot)com/news/magazine-29441383]
End effect = they "bombed "empire" into financial oblivion, with little real effect for the soldiers on the front lines.
The resources wasted (between a third and half, depending on the criterea used) on "flattening Germany" during WW2 was not available to stand up to Communism and The American Century after the war was over and down went London's interests.
From rulers of the world in 1900, down to 3rd fiddle after WW2, all in less than a lifetime.
Time for others to "rule the world".
Gee, thanks Arthur "while torching with glee, my fwiends deceived me" Harris.
We're all soooooo gweatfull....
1
-
@patriciabrenner9216 The Bible says to remove the splinters from the own eyes, before judging others...
Google the Children of the Creuze. More than 1,000 small children were forcibly removed from their parents, from the island of Reunion, promised "the good life" in France, and then mistreated as practical slaves on farms and in construction.
When did this happen?
1600? No
1700? No.
1800? No.
1900? Not even...
It was during the 1960s and 1970s, and your native country France, responsible for this mistreatment, refuses to pay compensation.
Instead of whining here about the crimes of others, what are you doing today, to rectify the crimes carried out by France?
Or, don't you think you are responsible?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mauris Erm...no.
Because the events which caused the massive spikes in homicides in Europe were one off terrorist attacks.
Europe countered this by more police and not lessening regulation on gun restrictions.
A smart move, because the best way to combat terrorism, is by a well trained professionals, not a bunch of wannabe Rambos who think they are professionals, but are also so arrogant as stating that they dont have to prove it (licenses, proven gun trials, weekly practise led by experts, and all of that).
European leaders and most people realize that the worst way to combat the spate of terrorism resulting form the US decision to invade Iraq in 2003 (long term causal events, violence spreading to Syria, etc.) was to allow a mostly disinterested populace to do it themselves.
Smart people realize that there is a string of secondary disadvantages to widespread and easily available firearms....suicide rates go up, petty crime will be carried out by guns as these flood black markets and become cheap, a general "arms race" between authorities and crooks which result in collateral damage increasing....
Uhm...no thanks.
I'm a weany European.
I like my safe environment :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your "heroes" bombed the British Empire into ruin.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Apologists for imperialism always discard the own actions, or simply consider them as "default valid" without bothering to ask anybody else.
Globalism/imperialism created all of its own enemies. Everything the USA /collective West is fighting/combatting these days, they created themselves in the past.
------------------------
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it is the only strategy which can be invisibly employed in times of war, and in times of peace.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are you a citizen of the world, and wish to contribute a small share to force Israel into a negotiated peace process?
Are you American, or European? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from the multitude of military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not perfect, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions.
It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
As long as Europeans view their European Civil War (1914-45, see footnote) as a battle between good and evil, they will continue to lose.
The Chinese leadership recognized after WWII that their "Chinese Century of Humiliation" (1837-1947) had to be ended by first kicking out the outsiders (mercenary forces/Machiavelli). As long as Europeans (collective concept) continue to think in words rather than concepts, they will remain tools of a higher power. As long as Europeans continue to think in terms of "good/evil" rather than "European/outsider," they will remain tools of external "divisive forces."
The same applies to the Arabian Peninsula and everywhere else on the planet.
----
Footnote:
In Western narratives, from the Anglo-Saxon/Eurocentric worldview, a war in East Asia involving a multitude of ethnically, religiously, and linguistically related peoples is called a "civil war," but for the same historians and storytellers, a war in Europe between a multitude of ethnically, religiously, and linguistically related peoples is a "world war." This is the logic of the "post-West world" (US/collective West), which tells the rest of the world that "our problem is your problem, but your problem is your problem," just as they have been doing for the past 500 years, and it's "just the way it is" and the "rules-based order."
Well, it's no longer the year 1600, or 1700, or 1800, or 1900, or even the year 2000.
Well, it's no longer the year 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900, or even the year 2000.
The arrogance of power is only arrogance of power as long as you have the power.
As soon as the "power" is gone, you remain stuck in your arrogance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have come to conclusion that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power).
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
1
-
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses smaller nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
Ever since "drunk Yelsin" telling off Clinton during the 1990s, the USA was warned about the dire effects own actions would have.
Putin (1999) replacing Yeltsin is an effect not a "cause".
First NATO expansion: 1999
Putin "emplaced": December 1999
Cause.
Effect.
Simple.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
“The dumbing down (of America is evident in the slow decay of substantive content, a kind of celebration of ignorance.”
— Carl Sagan
He had a foreboding of America of the future. While he was alive, he witnessed how manufacturing jobs were being shifted abroad, and everything became focussed on making as much profit for as few super-rich as possible, and as much for a few as possibly achievable without an outright revolution, while the endless talking and talking and talking carried on and on and on.
He continued...
“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you live in a frontier fort composed of civilians, intended to surround a concentration camp, then what did these settler colonists expect? Neighbors who bring them candy and flowers?
Hamas was created by Israel with a divide and rule intention, to undermine the authority of the PLO. Search that and one will find hundreds of articles, incl. from Israeli sources, which will confirm this intentional Israeli strategy of deceit and division.
Gaza is the world's biggest concentration camp, ringed in by a cicle of Kibbutzim, inhabited by settler colonists. If you want to know what's going on, ask a Jwe. They will honestly tell you straight in your face, and dare you to resist: "We are a generation that settles the land, and without the steel helmet and the cannon's fire we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home.” Moshe Dayan
The intention is ethnic cleansing, and a pretext is needed to vacate the land under the terror of cannon fire, in order to create the next concentration camp, ringed in by the next ring of Kibbutzim, inhabited by the next selection of future "victims of terrorism"...
What you are witnissing today, is the own biblical "logic" of "reap as you sow".
Israel INTENDED to "sow division" between the peoples of Palestine, and now they are "reaping" the effects.
Not a nice personal tale, agreed, so sorry about the personal misfortune of living in a frontier fort, and choosing to become a tool of encirclement.
But the own personal decisions to live a life as soldiers of fortune, using the own families as a human shields, whilst surrounding an open-air concentration camp as a tool of strategic encirclement, sometimes have unhappy consequences...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The events later called WW1 & WW2 were a part of the same conflagration which started around the year 1900, with the naval powers encircling their continental neighbours.
For the American Century after the year 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger chunk of land than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": the technique used by Washington DC was the same, which is to make use of existing divisions. An ACTIVE means, of making use of such divisions, is known as the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy. A proactive means to further own interests at the expense of others, is to favor some (increasing the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decreasing the power of the snubbed).
For the ACTIVELY ENGAGED "divider" the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in order to achieve the useful division for the higher power, are not important. These are the 99% ancillary details of history. It doesn't matter how division is implemented, or how existing divides are deepened, or who aids for whatever reasons, or whether those aiding and abetting division are even aware that they are aiding division: what matters is that it is implemented.
For the divider it is not important why the tools cooperate, but the fact that the tools cooperate in creating division in overpowering a chunk of the planet somewhere.
Why and that are different premises...
The empire in search of gain disguised by the "only interests"-narrative, does not care about the "why" or "what" you think is "true"...
The conflagration unfolding after 1914 was another European 30 years war (with a 20-year break in between) and had virtually the same powers set up against each other, with a few exceptions (Japan and Italy as newbies or "turncoats"). Details are not important. They are the "99%" of history, which bear no impact on HOW events unfolded.
The powers set up thus were:
1) the naval powers (Great Britain/USA) with their continental "buck catchers" (like France after 1904, and Russia after 1907, for example).
against:
2) the continental alliances, which were encircled and kept from reaching sufficient spheres of influence to grow, by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy started as premeditated action by the naval powers around 1900.
In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", which is a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The end effect of the setup of 1) and 2) was that Western- and Central Europe were virtually destroyed as centers of power, and the USA then used the effect to grind the British Empire into a more manageable "junior partner"-status by use of a premeditated strategy planned after 1940, just after the start of the "second round" of this conflagration. Or as Ricky Gervais would quip, "kick the midget British Empire" in the "bollocks" because after WW2 London was so weak that it could not forge a useful "pattern of relations" (George Kennan, see below) to fight back, and save its own markets from their "best friends".
After 1945 the USA used its own might as "hammer" and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). Stalin (Moscow) of course, smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and the other remaining European states' weaknesses, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2, overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centred imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
All accompanied by fake narratives for the masses, of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the implementation of the American Century®, at the expense of the British Empire)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The powerful have used the strategy of divide-and-rule for thousands of years to drive a wedge between peoples.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe noted back then: "Divide and rule, calls the politician; unite and lead, is the slogan of the wise."
Some politicians and rulers may do this innocently and without thinking, but most know exactly what they are doing with their divisive tongues and their line-drawing divisions. It is their most successful technique that allows them to rule over us by preventing greater unity among people. This allows them to skim off enormous wealth from the gross national product that actually belongs to all people. If it is important to you, forward this message to others. Unite with those you are ordered to hate, according to Goethe because this is the counter strategy of "the wise". We should not allow them to continue winning in the same way for the next thousand years.
Divide-and-rule.
Draw lines, then set the people up against each other.
If there is a problem, blame somebody else.
That is the historical Albion's way.
Incredible how many can be deceived for so long.
They keep conflicts alive by drawing lines in favor of one group over the other. The lines were often randomly drawn through tribes, through religious- or ethnic groups, to favor either the one, then the other. This created volatile hot spots of ethnic conflicts to use as pretext for intervention and occupation as the moral "rule maker".
------------------------------------------------------
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. What is explained here in this video, is the USA's global divide-and-rule strategy.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "divide and rule" strategy gives millions of people the illusion that they are struggling for an own cause, whilst actually depleting their own energy fighting for the causes of other, higher powers...
Just like "democracy" gives voters the illusion of choice, only to set them up in a collective "divide and rule"-setup, in which influence/TRUE power is funneled overwhelmingly in one direction: upwards.
Just like capitalism, gives advocates the illusion of chance, only to set them up in a collective "divide and rule"-setup, in which wealth is eternally funneled overwhelmingly in one direction: upwards.
Empires use and abuse human beings as...
- walls and barriers
- as proxies for the own gain
- as tools (instruments of power)
- as potential "staging areas" for future own use
- as "extensions" of the own power (or increased "reach" for the imperialist power)
Using other people are "cheap ways" to advance the American Century. "Cheap" to the tune of 113 BILLION dollars to date, for probably the easiest avoidable war of the century, so far...
"To be clear, aiding Ukraine, giving the money to Ukraine, is the cheapest possible way for the US to enhance its security." - Zanny Minton Beddoes, editor-in-chief of The Economist*
Imperialist arguing about the price tag for such "services rendered."
During the 1930s, the imperialists in Berlin, and the imperialists in London haggled about what should be considered a "fair price" in order for Germany to balance out the rise of the Soviet Union after the successful implementation of Moscow's 5-Year Plans, leading to a rapid steep rise of Soviet industrial- and military power during the 1930s, which threatened British rule over South Asia (see the history of the Second Tournament of Shadows (the rekindled "Great Game" of the 19th Century).
Notice that such "haggling" can take place without a single direct meeting.
Or, it can be explained by looking at actual events.
It is in fact revealed by reality, created by the events.
Place the EVENTS first.
So...first on the "list": a nice big navy...check
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_Naval_Agreement
A little piece of Germany back...check
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remilitarisation_of_the_Rhineland
A tiny sliver of Czechoslovakia...check
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
A nice little increase of political and military WEIGHT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Steel
(Based on a famous song from "To be or not to be" by Mel Brooks, 1984)
If German taxpayers were going to pay and work to "man the parapets" of the limitrophe, to balance out Russia on the other side of the WALL, there was going to be "price tag." Like it or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitrophe_states
Europe wanted it that way and implemented this geopolitically with the Treaty of Versailles.
In the 1930s, Europe then GOT what it wanted, and what had been set up.
Cause.
Effect.
Simple.
Versailles was the "divide and rule" of and over continental Europeans, by outsiders of course. Everything following in its wake, was the EFFECT. Like it or not, reality does not care what any individual thinks.
At Versailles, the people of Europe were "divided" with a "ruling." Such a "divide and rule"-strategy on the "dark side," lay the foundation of problems which have a clear causal chain of political problems leading right through to WW2, and even right through to today. This was done for own gain after WW1 (obviously, weakening Central Europe by "carving it up," indirectly resulted in gaining more own strength/ more POWER for the dividers, by subtracting it from those divided). The dividing powers were obviously wrong, because to an overwhelming extent, nobody bothered asking the people so divided what political future they wanted for themselves by means of referenda/plebiscites (overwhelmingly NOT carried out). Obviously also a BIG wrong, because by that time the leaders already knew what "dark divide and rule" might/could lead to in some possible future...
"In 1980, I heard Ralph Raico give a series of lectures at Dartmouth College on World War I. At the time, I thought how great it would be to have those lectures published. I am extremely happy that this second edition provides the student of liberty with Ralph's ideas and the research evidenced by his extensive footnotes. His article on World War I is the best, most concise statement regarding the real causes and effects — the costs—of World War I that I have seen. The title of his article, "World War I: The Turning Point" indicates that World War I, which culminated in the horrible Treaty of Versailles, constituted the turning point for all of Western civilization. It set the stage for wars throughout the remainder of the 20th century, and virtually assured that another war would occur in Europe ..." From "The Costs of War" : America's Pyrrhic Victories / edited with an introduction by John V. Denson. — 2nd expanded ed.
Set the stage.
Lay the foundation.
1
-
Chamberlain did the right thing.
Postpone the almost inevitable war for as long as possible.
Unfortunately, although declared wisely, it was implemented unwisely...
Churchill or the other lords were still "fighting the last war", as that saying goes.
In their effort to hang on to their Empire, they made the wrong "friends"...
One their one side, there was the USA. But Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
And the other "friends"?
On the other side of Europe, there was the other "friend": Stalin.
Stalin however, figured out that the Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. What are you going to do about it?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thethirdman225 Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war.
Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised. "Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
1
-
@thethirdman225 Too late if "conservatism rules", delaying timely changes for too long.
That is why I always write that the London lords had 2 chances to save the Empire and GB's position in the world.
First chance was the turn of the century (around 1900), second after WW1.
After that, it was too late.
Too bad.
Own bad choices.
Yes, I know "the narrative".
It sounds pretty much the same as "the narrative" promoted by the new alpha today, and why The American Century is going down and will fail.
All too predictable because it's history repeating itself, and Washington will go down the same way that London once did.
That's what happens when conservatism rules, because conservatism is a bias. If one doesn't adapt to changing times one will die. Being powerfull might delay death, but only pulling the helm around ("timely changes") will stop it from happening.
My prediction? They won't because they "won" the last Cold War, so they will instigate the next one, hoping for a similar outcome (conservatism = doing things as we've always done them).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Agreed.
Sort out the mess you created. The USA has the most powerful "weapon" on its side: feelings.
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neutralitystudies All of the below might sound like Chinese fairy tales, or "conspiracy theories".
They are in fact universal strategies ...
In case your own personal prerogative is finding evidence in archives, then you will never, because that is the cool thing about strategies: no politician or power monger ever has to write these things down, and a lot of the archives one could potentially find evidence, are private hands without access.
Strategies (the Wiki site offers a quick overview):
Deceive the heavens to cross the sea (瞞天過海, Mán tiān guò hǎi)
Besiege Wèi to rescue Zhào (圍魏救趙, Wéi Wèi jiù Zhào)
Kill with a borrowed knife (借刀殺人, Jiè dāo shā rén)
Wait at leisure while the enemy labors (以逸待勞, Yǐ yì dài láo)
Loot a burning house (趁火打劫, Chèn huǒ dǎ jié)
Make a sound in the east, then strike in the west (聲東擊西, Shēng dōng jī xī)
Create something from nothing (無中生有, Wú zhōng shēng yǒu)
Openly repair the gallery roads, but sneak through the passage of Chencang (明修棧道，暗渡陳倉, Míng xiū zhàn dào, àn dù Chéncāng)
Watch the fires burning across the river (隔岸觀火, Gé àn guān huǒ)
Hide a knife behind a smile (笑裏藏刀, Xiào lǐ cáng dāo)
Sacrifice the plum tree to preserve the peach tree (李代桃僵, Lǐ dài táo jiāng)
Take the opportunity to pilfer a goat (順手牽羊, Shùn shǒu qiān yáng)
Stomp the grass to scare the snake (打草驚蛇, Dǎ cǎo jīng shé)
Borrow a corpse to resurrect the soul (借屍還魂, Jiè shī huán hún)
Lure the tiger down the mountain (調虎離山, Diào hǔ lí shān)
In order to capture, one must let loose (欲擒故縱, Yù qín gù zòng)
Tossing out a brick to lure a jade gem (拋磚引玉, Pāo zhuān yǐn yù)
Defeat the enemy by capturing their chief (擒賊擒王, Qín zéi qín wáng)
Remove the firewood from under the pot (釜底抽薪, Fǔ dǐ chōu xīn)
Disturb the water and catch a fish (渾水摸魚／混水摸魚, Hùn shuǐ mō yú)
Slough off the cicada's golden shell (金蟬脱殼, Jīn chán tuō qiào)
Shut the door to catch the thief (關門捉賊, Guān mén zhuō zéi)
Befriend a distant state and strike a neighbouring one (遠交近攻, Yuǎn jiāo jìn gōng)
Obtain safe passage to conquer the State of Guo (假途伐虢, Jiǎ tú fá Guó)
Replace the beams with rotten timbers (偷梁換柱, Tōu liáng huàn zhù)
Point at the mulberry tree while cursing the locust tree (指桑罵槐, Zhǐ sāng mà huái)
Feign madness but keep your balance (假痴不癲, Jiǎ chī bù diān)
Remove the ladder when the enemy has ascended to the roof (上屋抽梯, Shàng wū chōu tī)
Decorate the tree with false blossoms (樹上開花, Shù shàng kāi huā)
Make the host and the guest exchange roles (反客為主, Fǎn kè wéi zhǔ)
The beauty trap (Honeypot) (美人計, Měi rén jì)
The empty fort strategy (空城計, Kōng chéng jì)
Let the enemy's own spy sow discord in the enemy camp (反間計, Fǎn jiàn jì)
Inflict injury on oneself to win the enemy's trust (苦肉計, Kǔ ròu jì)
If all else fails, retreat (走為上策, Zǒu wéi shàng cè)
For a better understanding, one must of course read many more books.
Regardless of timepoint in history, ancient or modern, or the ethnicity/religion/origin/language of the strategists.
Strategies are of course, universal and unbiased.
1
-
@neutralitystudies IMO, these strategies are intentional.
On the global scale at the time of US independence, the only real threat to the existence of the USA was if Europe united (for whatever inexplicable reason).
US counter strategy would therefore obviously have been to "sow dissent" between European powers, which was easy, since Europeans were already "divided".
However, European powers at the time typically temporarily united for the sake of specific purposes, and one such purpose could have been to effect a multitude of seperate states in North America, which European powers could then use to "play divide and rule" with forever.
In "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies, the objective is to "set up" powers against each other, in order to gain some or other own advantage.
The US Civil War ("sold" to us as "mainly saving poor slaves" was of course nothing else but "mainly retaining the single hegemony on the North American continent" for Washington DC).
Note how in this "big picture" (geopolitics) the USA fought a war to retain own unity, but that in Europe they enterred existing wars to support division.
Regardless of the narratives usually assotiated with esp. WW1, and WW2, that is what was effected. Europe always remained in disunity.
(Same as with "poor slaves", the appeal to emotion is always to disguise own goals, by advancing a "humanitarian aspect" of crises and wars)
1
-
@neutralitystudies With regard to evidence for the above, of the long history of US influence in Europe, and the "freedom and democracy argument".
"In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution had been defeated and its leaders, who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile by the Stadtholder, William V, Prince of Orange, in league with the old oligarchs and with the intervention of Britain and Prussia. Adams and Jefferson agonized for the Dutch Patriots, but felt that they had been betrayed by their own excesses as well as by their Bourbon ally. The fact that France, pledged to the Patriots, had not lifted a finger in their support offered a melancholy lesson for the United States..."
(from ugapress manifoldapp)
Irrelevant of intentions, it fits the definition of "sowing dissent" in an existing "system".
Irrelevant of whether the reader has any personal preferences: the actions fit words, and words have definitions, which are a strategy. Divide others, to avoid unity.
Of course, at this early stage the USA had no way to implement "rule" in any form.
A divided Europe suited Washington DC just fine, because should Europe ever unite, it could pose an existential threat to the new USA...
The more division in Europe, the better.
Of course, esp. today, most people love the "freedom and democracy"-arguments, but back then they simply "sowed dissent".
1
-
@neutralitystudies You are most likely aware of how divide and rule works, but most people (and countries) don't like to admit how they actually get involved in the process.
A quick
Divide and rule.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage. These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Robert Greene of course, also a strategist (the "48 Laws of Power").
1
-
1
-
@neutralitystudies IMHO the strategy of "divide and rule/conquer" is always used to "steer" events, even if there is never a guarantee for success.
One can ask if the white leaders of South Africa intentionally used "divide and rule" in RSA, or whether it was simply convenient for them to use animosities between the races in order to gain ultimate power. Note, even blacks in SA were divided (Xhosa did not like the Zulu, as tribalism, for example). There were also Asians, who "felt" better than blacks and Indians, but were still "lower" than whites. This "divide and rule was simply called Apartheid to disguise what whites were really doing. Creating a giant "kiss up/kick down" system in which everybody would have to come to the hegemon for a "ruling".
Of course, nobody who practices this strategy, will openly admit to be doing it, so euphemisms like Apartheid are invented.
A chief means used in this strategy is "favoratism". A "favorite" is chosen, usually based on emotional argumentation, and granted more "access to power" of the "divider".
One can juxtapose this example of Apartheid, to the states and empire level of history.
One could ask if the British ever openly stated that they were going to use "divide and rule" in India, and all their other colonies. Of course they didnt, they simply "favored" some ethnicities like the Sihks or Ghurka (Nepal) and gave them more power and privileges. That then logically led to a "pecking order".
In fact, in politics, "divide and rule" is basically everywhere. Politics, incl. international relations, is "divide and rule", whether the politician wants to or not.
With regards to Europe, yes, the strategy basically carried itself, but just take the post-WW2 era, and the massive amount of hatred which existed.
All it needed was a policy to unite, like NATO or the EU (kickstarted by the Montanunion), which the "alpha" supported, and did not oppose. This is what I meant with "steering events".
Of course, a common enemy (communsim "declared" by the new hegemon, with the Truman Doctrine) is always helpful.
I'm happy that you are at least considering the theory, and not discounting it outright.
I have written about fifty essays, filled with links and evidence as I explained in this short answer about Apartheid = Divide and Rule. The strategy will always disguised in an euphemism (the Truman Doctrine was "divide and rule", since it "divided Europe", with a "ruling" by a hegemony), which makes me conclude that it was indeed intentional, as revealed by events unfolding.
I've subbed, and am eagerly awaiting new material.
1
-
1
-
@neutralitystudies Thank you for the response.
I have never officially published my essays, but basically posted them all over YouTube the past 6 or 7 years, as I realized the world was drifting towards another war. I had usually spread my essays over a wide variety of YouTube videos, so that the effect of what I wanted to achieve sort of evaporated: the readers didn't "get" my message.
I will send you a few of my essays per email which would give you an overview of where I'm coming from, noting the key theory of "How first London (pre-1945), then Washington DC used 'Divide and Rule/Conquer'-strategies", based on their geographical advantage to become/stay the world hegemon" at key watershed moments in time. Please ignore the sometimes "tongue in cheek" nature of some of these essays (of references to videos), because they were never intended to be published as a scholarly work, but rather for a wider/younger audience of YouTube.
The audience was intended to be teens or average folks, therefore the joviality or casual nature of my comments, but I assure you, the threory is serious.
Rgds
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of West Asia (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders have made use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people. First Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give a weak mind money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@billbillson5082 Help is on the way.
It might take few days.
From the WH
"President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Approves Texas Emergency Declaration
FEBRUARY 14, 2021 • STATEMENTS AND RELEASES
Today, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. declared that an emergency exists in the State of Texas and ordered federal assistance to supplement state and local response efforts due to the emergency conditions resulting from a severe winter storm beginning on February 11, 2021, and continuing.
The President’s action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in all 254 Texas counties.
Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency. Emergency protective measures for mass care and sheltering and direct federal assistance will be provided at 75 percent federal funding."
1
-
The advocacy for "total war", more "total" than one can imagine, counts for all...
The intended complete destruction of Germany as a "power", and removal of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe turned out to be a massive "shot in the own foot" for the West.
The 12 million Germans which were expelled from Eastern Europe, actually protected the West, and by extension, also the British Empire.
By their acquiescence to removing them as a "sphere of influence", London no longer had the leverage to enforce treaties, or protect own interests.
Really as simple as that...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angry about Mers el Kebir and had slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
There was nothing left to "balance" with...
"In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good." Sun Tzu, The Art of War
That's just how it goes if the eternal "balancing" games on the continent by the alpha go south. Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe/the world herself.
An entirely and easily avoidable WW1, lead to a (sadly) unavoidable WW2 which although it was declared wisely, was implemented disastrously...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS/GLOBALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS/MILITARISTS. Their branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just for context:
She delivered an unrequested sermon...
“As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true,” Chow wrote. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman.
Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
Again, Christians try to define what is "right", and then cry foul if they are called out for their narrow mindedness....
Nobody asked her to give a sermon, and quite frankly, people are tired of it.
Nobody has to listen to anybody's personal opinions about "right vs wrong".
The founding fathers drafted the Declaration of Independence, that grants every American the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness "
Yup, as a real American, that trumps your or mine, or some random Christian's sermon any day, don't you think?
1
-
1
-
Re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl/Historian)
Today, the USA has practically admitted that it misuses smaller nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the current war in the Ukraine:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.” Taken from a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region. In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script". Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" or "using little nations" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
Some things never change...
"The policy which Britain has been pursuing for the last two centuries has brought her prosperity and greatness. After each victory, Britain seems, on the surface to have gained for herself no advantage whatever; all she did, she claimed to be an act of international chivalry and justice but a deeper analysis of British statesmen's claims reveals that they never speak the truth. Britain's key policy is to attack the strongest country with the help of weaker countries and then to join the weakened enemy in checking the growth of other countries and so on, and so on. British foreign policy has remained basically unchanged for two centuries. When Britain befriends or colonizes another country, the purpose is not to maintain a cordial friendship for the sake of friendship but to utilize that country as a tool to fight all threats to her supremacy. Therefore Britain always remains in a commanding position by making other countries fight her wars while she herself reaps the fruits of victory." Taken from The Vital Problem of China by Sun Yat-Sen, 1917
Should we eternally defend these long-dead historical "lords" who sacrificed pawns so their own crumbling "Empire" could survive a few more years?
While these "fine gentlemen" in suites and bowler hats, scrambled to invent tax havens to safeguard the riches they had raked in for a few hundred years, the lower classes scrambled for their rifles and Spitfires...
These tax havens spared their own obscene wealth, while the middle-class and poor "masses" bore the burden of "Empire". These fine elites sacrificed pawns, while skimming the cream off the top for themselves.
After WW1, they already knew "Empire" was on the way out, but preferred playing the game with human lives just a little longer.
(Evidence: Search for The Spider's Web documentary, here on YT).
1
-
1
-
@MargaretKlassen It's "divide and rule."
Yes, you are correct.
Empires don't make "friends," they make useful alliances for their own gain.
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or the British Empire's Mackinder/Pivot of History before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that resources cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their geographical advantage.
With re. to how tools to implement the strategy are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as Kissinger implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combated by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today.
Today as we watch on, the Ukraine is being burnt to the "last Ukrainian soldier" accompanied by cheers of "...but, but, but they had a choice!!"
Poland will be next to be given a "choice," if the Ukraine fails as US/Western proxy and tool, in a long list of previous examples of the Washington DC/Pentagon-steered global strategy.
1
-
1
-
Hamas, just like every single "terrorist" organisation EVER, at any point in history ever, in any geographical location ever, by any religion ever, are always an EFFECT of oppression.
The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they created themselves with own PREVIOUS political actions, as terrorists...
Terrorism/Freedom fighting (POV) is always an "effect" not a "cause."
If you live in the west, then you (personally), or your parents, grandparents or previous generations have never ever ever fought anybody your own leaders have not personally set you up against.
Try me on this one.
Name me the war, incl. this current "War on Terror", and I'll inform you how your own government created it (aka "lay the foundation").
1
-
So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage.
Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating families. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Never a "price tag" for own actions...
Right?
WRONG
Brits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends".
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"...
And after the war ended?
They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946).
Did they ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not.
Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next.
Hop, hop, hop...into extinction.
Sad...
A "nation" which needs to bomb women and kids to "have hope" or inspiration even during hard times, does not deserve to "rule the world".
The post-WW2 bankrupcy was not only financial, but also moral...
Good riddance to "ruling the world" then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Too stupid to avoid disunity.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS.
Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite?
Today we see millions of followers of Islam, praying in their mosques in West Asia, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS, and 125 years ago we saw millions of followers of Christ, praying in their churches, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS. Oh, wait...we didn't see it...
We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart".
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, poor Patricia...thinking one can "delete" reality.
Reality?
The 12 million Germans which were expelled from Eastern Europe, and whose misery you are gloating about, actually protected the British Empire.
By removing them, London no longer had the leverage to enforce treaties, or protect own interests.
Really as simple as that...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
WW1 was the USA's hitherto biggest "regime change operation" (Germany) and "debt trap diplomacy" intended to bring down their biggest rivals: the British Empire.
Because here is what they tell you is "history" in thousands and thousands of books and docs: the "German people" or "German leaders" were the ones (fingers pinting) who "forced Wilhelm II into exile, to abdicate" or variations of that.
Here is what they (usually) don't say (lie by omission): That it was the own side which had previously coerced other German leaders into forcing the German government out of office, because that was a condition for negotions to take place in the first place.
1) coerce German leaders to topple the current government
2) leaders topple the current government
3) omit step 1), or pretend it never happened, and "write history" that pleases the own feelings...
4) repeat the story again and again
No amount of finger pointing deflection, personal standpoint, or any other justifications change this causal chain of events though.
"The President would deem himself lacking in candor did he not point out in the frankest possible terms the reason why extraordinary safeguards must be demanded. Significant and important as the constitutional changes seem to be which are spoken of by the German Foreign Secretary in his note of the 20th of October, it does not appear that the principle of a government responsible to the German people has yet been fully worked out or that any guarantees either exist or are in contemplation that the alterations of principle and of practice now partially agreed upon will be permanent. Moreover, it does not appear that the heart of the present difficulty has been reached. It may be that future wars have been brought under the control of the German people, but the present war has not been; and it is with the present war that we are dealing. It is evident that the German people have no means of commanding the acquiescence of the military authorities of the empire in the popular will; that the power of the King of Prussia to control the policy of the empire is unimpaired; that the determining initiative still remains with those who have hitherto been the masters of Germany. Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action, the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the world do not and cannot trust the word of those who have hitherto been the masters of German policy, and to point out once more that in concluding peace and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany."
[Source: International Notes: Diplomatic Notes
Prepared By Allan Westcott, Ph. D., Instructor, U. S. Naval Academy
November 1918 Proceedings Vol. 44/11/189
GERMANY'S EFFORT FOR PEACE
Germany Approaches President Wilson.—The German Chancellor, Prince Maximilian of Baden, on October 6 addressed to President Wilson a message requesting his intervention for peace and the conclusion of an immediate armistice. Austria-Hungary sent a request couched in similar terms.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl/Historian)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Cuban Missle Crisis and WW1.
Of course the average history fan will ask themself the question "What does the Cuban Missle Crisis have to do with WW1?".
The answer to that rhetoric: Everything, because even when "only studying history", we are also (indirectly) studying human nature.
And human nature, unlike human behaviour, is a constant. It does not change.
Human behaviour of course changes (rules, laws, society, etc.).
Whether ancient history or modern times: human nature remains the constant factor.
The key lessons when comparing the two, is how a willingness to compromise averted the end of humanity in 1962 (or MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction).
The average history fan's take on the Cuban Missle Crisis is somewhat along the lines of "Nasty Russia wanted to rule the world :-) and threatened the good guys USA but the good guys stayed strong and won in the end because we were better people and ya'll know the good guys always win", or something simplistic like that...LOL
Far from it.
To those who dig a little deeper and discover all the facts, and are particularly not confused by history books/docs pinning a flag on a timeline, a completely different picture arises.
It was actually the "good guys" who "started it", by placing own nuclear missles in Turkey, on the Russian doorstep, thereby creating a security issue for the UdSSR which did not exist in return for "the good guys", who initiated/triggered//started the crisis. The Russians responded, by using the age-old principle of "What does it feel like?" (or the Biblical "put yourself in their shoes"), and thereby started placing their own missles in Cuba, on the US doorstep.
Irrelevant of personal "feelings" (sympathies, opinions, patriotism, "my country, right or wrong", slogan chanting, whatever): reality was created by "causality", not the opinions or feelings of individuals.
The above has a parallel re. the geopolitical encirclement/military danger of a two-front war of Germany/Austria-Hungary. First by Russia and France of Germany, then followed by Russia-France-GB in re. to mostly Germany. Then followed by Russia-Serbia attempting to do the same with Austria-Hungary aka "two front war" danger for Austria-Hungary. Of course the 3rd Balkan War which Vienna started in July 1914 was in response to a Serbian provocation in June 1914, and was a preventive war (see definition). It was started by Austria-Hungary, to avoid/prevent a potentially possible alliance between Russia and Serbia.
At some point one oversteps a line re. the security issues of another state/alliance, and one must first acknowledge it, then work towards a compromise.
So what did the "new alpha" after WW2 (Washington DC), do differently during the Cuban Missle Crisis (1962), than the powers did in the leadup to WW1?
And in particular the "leader of the world" which was unmistakably still London/Empire (early-20th century).
1) Washington DC obviously first acknowledged that Russia stood "in different shoes" (biblical logic), and had a security issue created by US actions
2) after the first step of acknowledgement, a compromise was made
So here is what the noisy "victory"-chanters forget to mention: The USA withdrew their missles from Turkey, and in return Russia withdrew theirs from Cuba.
*Both countries' security issues were (within the limits set by the status quo at time aka "Cold War") acknowledged, and then a compromise was made.
Obviously there were differences. There was obviously a difference between a short-term crisis (2 weeks in 1962) and long-term geopolitical changes (say, the 30 years leading up to WW1). Also technology, geography, political systems, etc. between the two events, so there is no need to point these out.
The factor of human nature was the constant factor.
Also of course the knowledge on the part of both superpowers that screwing it up in 1962 could never lead to a "win" for anybody, because MAD would have been kinda final for all...
The "lesson to be learnt" from WW1 was obviously at least partly learnt by the new alpha after WW2.
"Put yourself in their shoes", and compromise.
Obviously there is no need to make false compromises (google "argumentum ad temporantium" or a false/shifted "middle ground").
For example in re. to the leadup to WW2. In the leadup to WW2 and a shoutout to all the "Hitler fanboys": Germany didn't have these geopolitical encirclement/military 2-front war security issues, because the caring good guys (LOL) took care of this "German angst" at Versailles.
"Apples and oranges"-comparisons are invalid).
The leadup to WW1 was a clear-cut case of ignoring the security issues faced by the Dual-Alliance. The Triple Entente powers were willing to push and push until something snapped. Unlike the "new alpha" after WW2, there was an unwillingness by the members of the Tripple Entente to deal with justifiable objections.
In that regard, lets see what happens with Chy-naaah and Russia today, in a similar big picture reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are you a citizen of the world, and wish to contribute a small share to end the grip the global elites have on the narrative of history?
Are you American, or European? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from the multitude of military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any platform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Why do we know this? Because good people have been voting, and posting, and debating, and using their freedom of speech, and protesting for hundreds of years, but the grip the elites have on the plebs has NEVER changed.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unraveling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting all international big brands.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small local companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever and whenever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone," or "but, but, but...your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be perfect...
Methodology: JDI and make it a long term lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk trend, because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate interests. Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small local companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Do you wish to fight meddling globalist empires?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influential GLOBAL ELITES only REALLY start "caring" (sic.) when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
Elsewhere, wars were instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, leading to disunity in the world, for the advantage of the dividers, in the USA.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power, or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power.
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same people and systems. Different times. Same games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Political/economic/financial/cultural capture, as practiced by the West during the 1990s, in Eastern Europe and Eurasia, was reigned in by Putin, after the year 2000.
The USA/collective West will never forgive Putin for stopping the slow methodical American Century expansion via a pro-globalist, vacuum cleaning oligarchy which siphons off the wealth of entire regions of the globe, past the well-being of the local populations, into the coffers of the American Century rulers....
The same happened in China, as symbilized by the fall of Jack Ma, toppled by Beijing, showing that their strategists knew what the USA/collective West was planning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@skontheroad2666 My "10%" is based on statistics.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/income-inequality-in-america-how-98-trillion-of-household-wealth-is-distributed/
Of course, it's probably only roughly correct, so it could be 9%, or 12%, or some similar error.
What I mean is the upper-middle class, and super rich.
Why should these people lose their private health care?
PS: in case you are not sure what I mean, then maybe familiarize yourself with typical "socialized health systems" in Europe. In Germany for example, every person earning more than around 4,000 Euros a month has the choice: stay in the "socialized Krankenkassen", or become privately insured.
One, does not exclude the other.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA/collective West is like the allegory of the unbalanced spinning washing machine. Their entire mechanism is to avoid balance, therefore exploiting eternal domestic/international crises/violence is the name of the game. The load inside totally unaware of the "Why?".
___________________
Because..."avoid" is all the machine ever does.
AVOID THE EQUILLIBRIUM
That is the sole aim of the "affairs of the city" which is per definition the system of politics.
Divide and conquer works because not everyone involved knows that they are taking on a role in a power game. That's how the strategy works. Very few people really need to understand it. In English, the principle is called "Useful Innocent/Useful Idiot." From a position of power, you can animate people (usually through money, or ideology) who play a role, but they know not what they do.
The peoples in your "neck o' the woods," have been ruled by division since the beginning.
Because it's easier to divide people based on personal differences than to unite them based on their similarities. Strategically ambivalent elites use this to their own advantage. Now the intention is simply to avoid the unity in your society, in order to "rule" over the dissenters, which is the classic "divide and conquer" principle. This strategy is kept under wraps, due to a systemic desire to be "good", and on the "right side of history", and therefore overemphasizing the actions of philanthropists, political doves, peace activists, religious leaders, etc.
At the same time the activities of political hawks sowing divisions are downplayed, relativized, apologized for, mostly by politicians and strategists as the "story tellers" of history. But also by commoners, who simply parrot the stories without thinking them through, and who are NOT privy to the overall strategy (divide-and-rule in all its intricacies and nuances).
The main interest of these people for which we have been fighting wars for centuries has been the relationships between organized systems of finance and power, and systems of resources and manpower. Because united they are the only power that could threaten this group. They must make sure that the unity of others does not happen. ... For these elites ... the greatest fear is an overall creation of a unity of technology, capital and natural resources, and labor, as the only combination that has frightened the elites for centuries. So how does this play out? Well, they have already put their cards on the tilted table. They draw their invisible lines onto society.
Today all our so-called "leaders" are too weak to create systemic unity, to avoid their "friends" simply drawing lines all over the place, which they cower down to and must obey.
Like a ratchet, one click at a time, the "marching empire." Endless wars, constant disagreements, using imperialism to stay on top. Using "levers" of lies and distrust, via power players. Creating favorites: favoring the proxies who bow down and sacrifice themselves for the mastah. Pointing fingers, everywhere else, using the POWER of the mainstream media.
Divide-and-rule/conquer.
The oldest trick in the book...
Who has the POWER? Who has always had the GEOPOSITIONAL advantage of power to rule? The GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all other "buck catchers" (tools and other instruments of POWER in the Roman era style), but could not be reached themselves at any point in a historical timeline due to a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic- or political advantage?
“Divide-and-rule/conquer” as a standard strategy of power and thus the cause of nearly all conflicts in the world connects the dots on the timeline of history. Being far from the events resulting from their own meddling and political activities and being able to reach all other regions, but could not be reached themselves.
All they want is peace, they say. Who gathers the pieces of the great wealth and systemic gains when everyone else has failed to unite?
Different terms. Different eras. Same games...
The opposition that wants unity and equillibrium in a region is the "bad guy."
We, who seek true peace and harmony, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized.
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D chess." Everything you know is a variation of reality. They are playing 5D chess with the minds of 2D checkers players, within the compartmentalized brains of people who think they are smart.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from "weapons of long range destruction" (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers (technological stand).
The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from "weapons of long range destruction" as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s anymore.
HISTORY RHYMING
Today there are nukes.
By golly, who would've guessed...
Regardless of what some "experts" proclaim, the logic of the "bomber will always get through" of the 1930s, is repeated today, and these various types of nukes will always get through in sufficient amounts to wipe any power off the map. Even if it survives as state or country, it will no longer be a world power. All it needs is sufficient numbers of MIRVs in order to sacrifice some (incl. duds to attract/distract/overwhelm the air defense), so that the mass of the rest will reach their intended targets. So the "experts" tell you their Patriots will stop them. These Patriots and other missiles and air defense systems can be overcome by implementing a very simple programmable and unjam-able multiple-layered enertia-guided and therefore unstoppable attack, as first-strike, and the first incoming Russian nukes, stationed just 15 minutes flight-time away, will act as multiple air burst to wipe out any attempt to intercept them in the radius of 100 miles, and the following strikes in their wake a few seconds later will mostly get through.
Keep on poking the bear.
Get the Ukraine to try and blind the Russian early-warning radar systems.
Keep on "poking by proxy" and we will find out, because we are ruled over by idiots, obfuscators, liars, deceivers and manipulators: not all of them, but enough to implement the divide and rule strategy of power.
Keep on poking, and find out that we've always been ruled by chest-thumping slimeballs and psychopaths: not all of them, but enough to implement age-old strategies of power, intended to gain as others lose. Just don't for a minute think, the default "other side" doesn't know what our leaders are up to...
Don't for a minute think that in the attempted twisting of observable reality to deceive oneself, that one can deceive others.
Should the above unfold, it doesn't matter anymore how one chest-thumps around about how "superior" or "always right" one always was while setting off on the MARCH ROUTE of the empire.
It doesn't matter anymore if one lives in the EU or Northern Europe, going "but, but, I'm sooooo innocent."
It doesn't matter if one chants "trust our leaders, cos they know better cos cos we democracies."
It doesn't matter anymore about how the few survivors brag about "how man wussians they also bagged".
Then it doesn't matter anymore, because our myopic leaders will no longer be in a position to implement wrongs per "new Versailles" (currently planned in Switzerland for mid-June) and get away with it. Of course, they are going to insist on only negotiating with the true representatives of the peoples of Russia, who truly desire peace just like our own superior Western leaders who have only always wanted peace, cos they said so, and since that turned out soooooo gweat last time around (Treaty of Versailles, when the other side wasn't invited either).
The conference is of course a total waste of taxpayer money, just like Versailles was 100 years ago (1919).
Before Moscow gets into that position of becoming carved up and used as a tool to encroach on the next in line, China, it will wipe the entire West off the effin map FIRST.
The USA/collective West (systemically) no longer have a geographical position of power.
Guess who will live longest in the "nuclear winter"-scenario? (theory)
Short answer: NOT you (personally).
Longer answer: The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for in the late-20th century and these days, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
Because during the next war set up by the dividers of the world, from their assumed GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, it does not matter "who is right" and it does not even matter "who is left," loosely quoting Churchill, but rather in what state the leftovers are going to be in. Then even after all that, one will notice a remarkable reality: these "leftovers" will strut around, claiming to never never done anything wrong...
1
-
1
-
ASIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside powers can "surf in and skim off the profits". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS
European peoples are to daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that that end up thinking everything they do is justified, with "only a few exceptions"...
Has your nation, or your leader been "chosen as a favorite son of the West"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have with neighbors aside, or settle them fast, and don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme. Actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU today, for the gain of the outside Western Powers, just like divide and rule sacrificed your grandparents and previous Asian generations during the Era of Imperialism...
------------------------
P.S.: I cannot personally post this message myself too often, since YT autoblocks it as "spam" if I copy and paste it under videos too often. I need YOUR help. In your own interest of safety, please spread this message with regards to the age-old "divide and rule"-strategy of outside (non-Asian) powers. TY
1
-
pedro lopes Google "cause and effect".
The current political situation is the EFFECT of 100 years of western meddling in the ME, started by GB and France after WW1.
Colonialism lay the foundation, followed by white mass immigration (Zionism) changing the demographics in the Levant, wars for oil in the region, covert secret operations on the sovereign lands of other nations because of vested interests (aka corporatism), regime change, protection and support of corrupt and ideologically indoctrinated regimes (i.e. Saudi Arabia or Israel).
The floods of immigrants to the west today, are a result of a war which was started (based on a lie) by GB and the USA in 2003, and continued due to FOREIGN meddling (proxy war) until today.
The culprits are the USA plus their "lapdog" Israel, Russia, Iran, Turkey...
Whining about the effects of own actions is a bit late now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The storyline of settler colonialism is a subsection of the study of divide-and-rule/conquer/control. The "settler" (role in strategy) WANTS something, and thereby become the tools of imperialism, and this is usually portrayed as "generally good for mankind" (sic.) in Anglo-Saxon historicity. A few of the horrible events which result out of the mass-influx of outsiders on an existing status quo is usually added in "to seem fair and balanced" but the strategy is never elaborated. The storyline always rhymes, regardless of where on the planet such SYSTEMIC EXPANSION takes place, and the informed history fan will recognize it, regardless of all the obfuscating and whataboutism ("finger pointing" ingroup). It goes something like this: If we (ingroup) arrive somewhere, with our systems, intent on gain, we (ingroup) are always right. But...and here is the big BUT: If we are somewhere, settled in, regardless of what happened before, and if the people who were already there want to re-assert themselves, WE are always right too. What a nice storyline: "We" (ingroup story/Anglo-Saxon historicity) are always right, regardless of what is actually unfolding on a timeline.
The storyline of the advocates of mass-immigration into a region of the globe never leaves room for misinterpretation: the outsiders are always "right" and those already there, defending the status quo, were "wrong."
The storyline of the oppressed "switching sides" to become the oppressors in another region of the globe always rhymes too. White settler colonists who went to North America or Southern Africa were overwhelmingly from Europe, at least in the early stages of the 500-year project.
They were:
- religiously persecuted.
- poor and oppressed.
- escaping war.
- parts of religious ingroups.
- allowed to leave Europe since these "problematic people" (sic.) created problems for the ruling elites in Europe.
- after "settling" in, and got comfy, they (ingroup) received imperialist support from centers of power once inside and after gaining power within the "promised land".
- if the local names don't sound familiar, the settlers just adapt or change the names and invent a suitable cover story to "rewrite" the histories of the settled lands.
- after independence is declared "with a little help from fwiends," one-sidedly without consultation with the original inhabitants, everything done after that became "legal 'cos a law made by 'us' (ingroup) says so".
- cherish the narrative of "there is a war going on, ya know", so we (ingroup) "do nothing wrong"...ever... (note: there is always a "war going on", so we/ingroup are also strangely "always right").
Once arrived in the promised lands, some (not all) took the holy book in one hand, the gun in the other, and set out to first squeeze out, and later encircle the indigenous populations into ever-smaller reservations, after ethnically cleansing them in Trails of Tears. This history of South America, the Caribbean, the USA, Australia, New Zealand of South Africa, rhymed in the Levant 100 and 200 years later (1920s thru until today) and the Kenyan "White Highlands" at the same time (early-20th century). Even the "stories" these white supremacists tell themselves in order to cover up their actions and the systemic overpowering of the locals sound exactly the same as 100 and 200 years ago, rhyming with the actions 100 and 200 years before in North America, Southern Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc...
Today, with few exceptions, even the slogans their white supremacist leaders chant rhyme in nature. The storyline which rhymes, is that the indigenous populations at a certain status quo when "we" (ingroup) arrived on their shores, were just the inferior "placeholders" and therefore mere "dogs in the manger" (quoting Churchill about Native Americans and Arabs) until the true chosen people, the "superior whites" arrived to shoo them away with words, money, guns, and the POWER of OUTSIDE imperialist means and ends.
Today the propagandists want YOU to "do and follow" and not to "think and oppose" imperialism.
The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same strategies of expansion as they did 500, 200 and 100 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care. As always, the warning voices of the sane halves are ignored, downplayed, "finger pointed" at as "unpatriotic," or as being "in bed with the enemy", and many other forms of equally "rhyming history."
It is what they spend billions on every year so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching to the jolly tunes.
The settler colonists came in droves for SYSTEMIC EXPANSION and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE...
Also rhyming, are the sane voices of reason and logic: they remain a minority. Even if they are a majority, these voices of opposition do not count, for the entire system is geared on SYSTEMIC EXPANSION. Same as 500 years ago. The actions they can get away with might be restricted a little by laws, but the stories still rhyme.
1
-
Don't for a minute think European citizens don't know the game being played.
At least not those who know history.
In the late-19th Century, France fought back against the German attempts to isolate it politically, by cordoning off Germany and the Central Powers with a ring of alliance partners.
France, in the west, a hostile Russia (as the "dissed girlfriend") in the east.
GB's RN in the position to cut off the north, in case of war. That only left a small corridor of access either through Serbia, or Austria-Hungary's ports in the Adriatic (threatened by British hegemony over Greece).
Today, we see a similar strategy concerning China.
Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines controlling sea access to the east. Trump playing it nice with Putin/Russia [yup, "collusion" in some form or other is real. Geopolitics almost dictates it to be true], would cut off the north-west/north-east. A more hostile India, will cover the south-west sector...almost there.
That only leaves a narrow corridor of access to the south, in the South China Sea. The Sprattly Islands...
History might not always be 100% the same, but it certainly rhymes.
And Putin?
Let's see if he agrees to Russia's role.
Let's see what price the USA has to pay...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At 36.00 minutes.
Yes, when the USA/NATO started marching towards Russia during the 1990s, it has been Washington DC "holding the cards", and the "winner" whatever happened.
War, crisis, peace, whatever happens, the USA "wins" if someone else loses.
Because what they are after is European/Eurasian disunity and division.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works."
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others.
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
Washington DC and "American interests" have already "won". See Nordstream: American corporations buying up the ruins, pivoting to Russia, and when the "peace" is reinstated in some future, a *US corporation will own the infrastructure, siphon off profit as middleman, and Washington DC will CONTROL the resource flow in Europe de facto and de jure...
Europeans are the biggest dumba~~es on the planet.
Sorry, no offense...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Today we see 1914 repeating.
I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, Germans, etc. stating how they would never fight for their current, flawed governments and their flawed politics...
Sorry to burst your bubble.
I've got some bad news for all you "never gonna fight"-fanboys.
YOU. WILL. GO.
Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything, nobody ever decided anything, everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, profiteers, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and finger-pointers...
Of course these hundreds of comments mirror the comments made by hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favourite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the leadup to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power, in times of peace.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more freedom, but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too ignorant to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed right through to today.
Guess who "wins"?
The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
1
-
1
-
Those who have power constantly preach the "rules based society", but the rules they preach, are nothing like the "rules" they themselves follow as guidelines...
They themselves follow "rules" like the "48 Rules of Power/Robert Greene", which are not meant to overcome the divide and rule setup of any society, even democracies, but to make use of the divisions between systems, amplify these divisions if useful, or gloss over such divisions if beneficial for the own gain, in order to win personally or for the own favored system.
For those who follow such "rules", hypocrisy or lies are not an "oversight", or "a mistake", or "accidental", but a strategy of power (see footnote).
Hypocrites draw other hypocrites into their own circles of power: by being openly hypocritical, a hypocrite exposes himself/herself, and can therefore be approached by systems of gain. This is greatly aided by media, or the internet, incl. "free speech", since hypocrisy and lying is a "protected right". Creating entire entities of professional hypocrites and professional spinners, framers, and liars thereby establishing a hierarchy of hypocrites/deceivers, especially prevallent in systems of power and gain, like politics (incl., but not limited to "liberal democracies"), and all forms of structures with an intent of gain motivation (incl., but not limited to capitalist gain models). All of these attract a potential "<20% psychos" which are proven to exist in the top echelons of power in all "intent of gain systems".
Such systems also attract natural bullies, as per observable reality, as I described in the essay under this comment.
Hypocrites, narcissistic behaviour, bullying, and Machiavellianism might cause unease in the overwhelming number of good people in every society, but these good people are usually not the ones "gatekeeping" (also a bully tactic) the most influencial political/corporate job openings, which are not voted for by the populations of "Western-style"-democracies, or in corporations which then proceed to buy their own favorable laws (lobbying, influence) and buy corruptable politicians in the "legalized bribes"-systems they had previously lobbied for...
Being openly hypocritical and deceptive is a "rule" considered a virtue, in some circles of power.
Calling these people out in an effort of shaming is pointless, since they have no shame.
Footnotes/key words for further research:
* 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
* Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
* The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
* Dr. Namie's research concerning the 4 observed bully tactics
Those who justify (almost) everything which happened in the past (a divide and rule world), will justify the present.
Because the "divide and rule"-world never ended...
1
-
Regarding "the bully", and human nature, there is a direct connection between how individuals and states act and react: obviously, since states are made up of individuals with an intent of gain motive. One can therefore draw comparissons between the micro level of individuals or small scale systems (society and companies), and the macro level of corporations, big power interests, and therefore states and empires.
They all act, and react in similar ways, and the connecting link is strategy.
Dr. Gary Namie conducted an exhaustive series of micro level studies to conclude that there are four categories of toxic bullies in society and the workplace, based on the carefull observation and close encounters with other human beings. The four types of bullies are the Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper.
Screaming Mimi is the fist-wielding screamer who chooses a public setting in order to vociferously point fingers in your face...
Two-Headed Snake is the Jekyll and Hyde back-stabber, who steals the credit for the hard work of others. They smile and are 100% in control of body language with studied "backpats" and superficial compliments, yet behind the back spread lies, rumor, innuendo in order to damage reputations of adversaries...
The Constant Critic is another one of the "finger pointing"-variety of of "friends", who's not above falsifying information, or burning documents, to pin “mistakes” on others...
The Gatekeepers withhold resources others need to succeed, jealously guarding own privileges against other systems trying to make it...
Our history books are full of warnings against the "screaming Mimi" variety, characterized by images of a fist-wielding screaming Hitler, yet when it comes to other bully tactics, the inhabitants of various systems of gain become remarkably acquiescent, apologetic, and complacent about observed, or unobserved actions of bullying. Bullying is of course nothing else but a strategy, and because the other three bully types are easily disguised, the overwhelming number of citizens of western style democracies go to bed each night, secure in the knowledge that they live in superior systems (democracy/capitalism). Both democracy and capitalism are designed to overpower and conquer other systems, but the means they use are more difficult to spot.
Not for the first time in history, the opportunity to sign a mutually agreeable comprehensive European security agreement was bypassed, to the mutual detriment of all European systems: "President Dmitry Medvedev presented the initial proposal for a revision of the European security system during his visit to Berlin in June 2008. The proposal included the signature of a legally binding treaty (involving all states and organisations active in Europe). The Russian proposal has been subsequently repeated on many occasions, including by the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov in his address to the UN General Assembly in September 2008 ... During World Policy Conference in Evian, France on 8 October, the Russian president explained the original idea more precisely by presenting the five principles on which the new system should be based. The key element of Medvedev’s plan remains the postulate of equal security for all, which, if implemented, would mean that no actions that might be perceived as threatening the security of others would be allowed ..." CES Commentary, Center for Eastern Studies, 16.10.2008
Empires come in 4 toxic flavors: The Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper.
We as individuals are constantly warned about the first, but we should watch out for what we're not being told: keep a lookout for the last three.
To "avoid avoiding war" by the strategy of "pushing until something snaps" is one characteristic.
Bullies also manipulate millions of people, via mostly loyal squires or henchmen.
Re. the question why all the observed reality is allowed to happen, is based on human nature, and the nature of our prefered systems of capitalism/democracy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was peace, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces and walks off wit GAIN, when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
>>>
The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
>>>
The people of the Americas, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people into "ingroups". In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the USA's power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS. Eden was a status quo divided by lies and deceit. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the two Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly are two cheeks of the same gold-plated hind which sets out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, is the mirror of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets and becomes successful it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances.
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
It's divide-and-rule today, and it was divide-and-rule 20 years ago, it was divide-and-rule 50 years ago, it was the same strategy 100 years ago, and 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the locals were too weak/divided to unite.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GreenAndMeat paw No. I didn't say that, nor even imply it.
Google "causality".
Causality is indifferent.
Things will happen, if your side constantly imposes, bombs, invades, and kills people.
At some point, there will simply be blowback.
It is a really simple concept.
The Bible says "reap what you sow".
Sow a good seed, reap a good harvest.
Sow a bad seed, sow a bad harvest.
It counts for everybody.
The west, and after 1950 mainly the USA has been sowing division, hatred, proxy war, intervention, political meddling, CIA covert operations....and so on, and so on...
At some point there will simply be a response.
Blame your leaders.
The ones responsible are long dead...buried as "heroes".
The ones alive today follow in their footsteps, while you do nothing...
1
-
GreenAndMeat paw You're a DEMOCRACY.
If you don't like what your government does, then change it.
Nobody can stop you, because you have the right to protest, and the right to march on Washington to end these policies of hatred.
The USA is a DEMOCRACY and if a DEMOCRACY cannot fix a fundamental wrong, then the people in such a system will simply always be affected by OWN policies.
Don't like something?
Change it.
Go out into the street, and make use of your 1st Amendment rights.
So what did you do to stop your governments' constant wars for oil, the invasions, support of mass-murdering dictators, the divide and rule policies, the drone strikes on weddings and and air raid shelters....nothing?
Cool if you can kill others, right?
Cool if your snipers can kill teenagers and old men....
Well, there will then simply be an effect, like it or not.
Causality is a bitch sometimes, especially when innocents suffer for what others do....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tolkien: "...but they were all of them deceived...for there was another ring..."
Their "service to king and country" came with a price tag: The end of his beloved Empire...
Looooooong before WW2, an elitist club of insider London lords they served, had set off to set Europe up for failure...
And they repeated it TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage.
Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Never a "price tag" for own actions and inactions...
Right?
WRONG
Bwits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends".
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"...
And after the war ended?
The "winners" became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers" when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946). Did they ask the London lords who were busy desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not.
Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next.
Hop, hop, hop...into extinction.
Sad...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Strange, how few in this comments section address the core message Hasan made.
The core message being that it is the USA meddling in their world.
As Robert Kennedy Jr. notes about the history of the ME:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster
So who was it that went to their world, removed their moderate leaders, and replaced them with religiously indoctrinated nitwits? Correct. Our religiously indoctrinated nitwits who wanted to turn people into tools....lmfao...
The truth is that the USA absolutely loooooves Jihadists, as long as they don't act against the USA.
Or, that Biblical logic: "the people shall reap what your leaders have sown"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS/GLOBALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS/MILITARISTS. Their branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sad reality, if you live in the USA/collective West.
Your "deceiving class" does not care what you think, and they never have.
Ever since "Remember the Alamo!!" which is an APPEAL TO EMOTION (event: a bunch of slave-loving settlers, trying to get away from rules/regulations), and "Remember the Maine!!" (imperialist warhawks vying for expansion, looking for fools to do the dying), the majority of your fellow citizens WILL be deceived into their trenches...AGAIN. And again, the loudest screamers for war have virtual "trenches" in their mommy's basements, safely tucked away behind keyboards. A truism of human nature, despite the Bible warning "do not judge" (until you have ALL the information...ALL. OF. IT.)
Sad reality of the liars and deceivers? They are so confident in their lying and deception, that they are using the same "WMDs"-narrative that has already been proven a big lie, 25 years after framing it for a war of choice against Iraq.
"7 countries in 5 years"
Let no-one deceive into thinking "they" (other side) started it, in the "Who started it?"-blame game, AGAIN...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlbionTarkhan ROTFL...but "evidence" provided by Israel and the USA is better?
Honestly, who is trying to "rule the world"?
Google The American Century, and then the Project for the New American Century, and then scroll down to see who signed up for it...
The Manisfest Destiny, the Monroe Doctrine...PNAC...
It's pretty easy to see who has been the agressor for the last 100 years ...
So it's the Iranian navy patrolling "their oil" in the Gulf of Mexico?
It's the Iran secret service toppling the US government, inposing their "choice dictator" on the the American people?
It's Iran's currency, and fiscal policy, dictating the price of oil?
It's Iran which has a veto in the UN than can avert any international consensus on every issue?
It's Iran which sent millions of refugees and immigrants into the USA, changing the entire demographics of an entire region?
It's Iran, supporting Central American drug lords, helping them flood the US with drugs?
Tell me, how exactly is Iran dictating your freedom?
Cause and effect buddy.
And don't even try to start your "timeline" anywhere else than at the very beginning, when western interference in their world started....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
Elsewhere, wars were instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, leading to disunity in the world, for the advantage of the dividers, in the USA.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power, or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power.
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jeff Carver. But, but....I am actually not Spanish :-)
I said I live in Spain, so sorry for the confusion. I was born in South Africa, have Dutch and German parents, speak four languages, have lived and worked in 3 European countries.
So diversity is neither new to me, nor something to fear.
Spain is probably the last, because of the weather :-)
My connections to the US?
Well, I spent more than a year there, and travelled all over the place. I go back all the time. So, yeah. I guess I consider myself knowledgeable about the US way of life, diversity, and culture.
You are a dying generation, and the new generation WILL have a slightly different outlook on life. Time changes opinions. That's a fact.
Adios amigo :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@synthsun7662 *If you wish to know who the biggest "buck catchers" of history were, then please go to the comments section under the "His--tory Ro..om " educational channel on "Wilhelm II" (documentary).
Great Britain and France did not "win" from the "divide and rule/conquer" system they had set up in Europe, and the British Empire did not gain by the own London policy standpoint of making the strongest continental power their "default rival/enemy" system.
Britons (average citizens) lost BIG TIME.
Of course, no superficially observed series of events can be concluded to be a non-falsifiable theory, if there is not a substantial amount of evidence to corroborate it, and if you wish, that video cmments section has more than 100 essays going back more than 4 years, to provide more than ample evidence for the theory of how Europeans were 1) once "divided and ruled" over (after around 1900), and 2) are still being divided and ruled over (around the year 2000), by outside powers.
Please go there...or not.
Personally, whether you go there and read the essays there, or don't doesn't matter to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books", incl. the "debates" around this mini-topic of Mers el Kebir, re. the "right or wrong"-dichotomy...
Reality, does not give the proverbial hoot about what any individual considers "right" or "wrong".
There is only the reality of "what happened", incl. what happened afterwards.
And if you are an a$$hole, eternally bent on setting others up against each other, in order to gain, you'll eventually lose your empire.
A history of 99% ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had the global influence of the Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bw6524 You do wrong, you "reap" wrongs.
Biblical logic.
It counts for all, not only "bad guys".
London went to war twice, by own admission, to "balance powers" on the continent...
London's standpoint, by own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, for those lacking the necessary comprehension skills: the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
And so they played the "balancing games".
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
How absolutely funny...
They gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire.
Good riddance.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They "hopped on the scale", in times of peace and in times of war, whatever side was the weakest, to counter the ...ahem..."dictatorship" of the strongest country/alliance/power.
And so, they "hopped" their way into extinction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Not at all.
Simply the logic that some mistakes are not relevant to the point being made, therefore not "countering" anything.
I pointed out that the OP was (provably) wrong.
B W stating that I got a fact wrong, does not affect the conclusion, which is that the OP is still wrong.
The RAF could hit small targets, if they aimed at them, with satisfactory precision (for the time/state of technology).
All that was needed was a policy directing the attacks on valid targets, which would have made a true impact on the war effort, whilst at the same saving some energy for the vital post-war peace negotiating position.
Instead, British resources were wasted away on creating rubble, weakening Central Europe/Germany, which was later not available to "hop onto" to save the British Empire.
Now that was just too bad.
But I guess that's what happens in "amateur hour"...
Sort of like smashing the aircon, then wondering why the heat gets unbearable :-D
"The heat" was after the guns stopped shooting, and London no longer had the power/leverage to impose decisions which could have saved Empire.
Political influence, spheres of influence, markets, and all that boring stuff you know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Ahh...the old truism that those shouting "educate yourself" means that its usually projection, and that they need the "education" themselves.
"A limited war is one in which the belligerents do not expend all of the resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise in a specific conflict. This may be to preserve those resources for other purposes, or because it might be more difficult for the participants to use all of an area's resources rather than part of them. Limited war is the opposite concept to total war."
Of course, Stalin knew of the London lords' affinity for "total war", and he also intended to "make the war last as long as possible".
Didn't you know that?
Didn't you know that he intended to "make the war last as long as possible, with a benevolent neutrality (while the "at war"-powers slugged each other to a point of total exhaustion) by circumventing the Royal Navy's blockade by supplying the Nazi with key resources, and food?
Didn't you know any of this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just for context:
She delivered an unrequested sermon...
“As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true,” Chow wrote. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman.
Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
Again, Christians try to define what is "right", and then cry foul if they are called out for their narrow mindedness....
Nobody asked her to give a sermon, and quite frankly, people are tired of it.
Nobody has to listen to anybody's personal opinions about "right vs wrong".
The founding fathers drafted the Declaration of Independence, that grants every American the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and hapiness "
Yup, as a real American, that trumps your or mine, or some random Christian's sermon any day, don't you think?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's divide-and-rule.
At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule.
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others...
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favouritism.
"Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Africa, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the behavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD"
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact. It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of. What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of those in search of profit and in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. For the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact that it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why?
Because of telling you the truth?
Hasan is right.
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Please comment.
But, errr....no "fluffy emotions"....please....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A lot of ancillary and totally irrelavant details.
It was a London policy which made the strongest continental power the default "rival in peace", and the default "enemy in war".
London had 2 chances to correct their faulty reasoning.
One with Wilhelm II, roughly until 1900, until German leaders lost their patience trying to get a mutually beneficial treaty with London.
The 2nd chance, after WW1, while Germany was a democracy.
They blew both chances, and would subsequently lose their Empire.
Because roughly in parallel to Germany on the continent across the English Channel, there was another "new power" rising across the Atlantic, whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”
It was the USA.
Or "maybe they (Europe) won't notice if we sneak up on them..."
The American Century advocates in Washington DC were very good at "biding time" until they were strong enough to eclipse "the old", and not to care anymore.
With the "leverage" geography gave them (distance from squabbling Europeans), plus a drastically increasing power, as technology shrunk the world, they knew they would just have to wait long enough until the eternally squabbling Europeans had torn themselves to shreds.
Because in the arsenals of M-A-I-N there was another "weapon".
Well-known at the time, and formulated into words by John Quincy Adams: "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country: One is by sword and one is by debt."
Note: it was "a plan" of sorts.
Wait.
Simply wait.
Washington DC/The American Century: "Let's see what happens. Never let a crisis or war go to waste."
Washington DC: If your rivals are making a mistake, don't interrupt them...
The main big difference?
While London afronted/confronted the strongest continental power/alliance which was Germany and the Dual Alliance at the time, as a matter of policy, the USA made the strongest power/alliance the "temporary friend" during crises and wars, only to overpower it commercially/economically/financially after WW2 was over."
Smart.
Kaiser Bill wished for "a place in the sun" (i.e. "markets", and "spheres of influence").
IMHO they should've just given him one, without the push-back.
It was greed and the control-freak instincts of "old empires", jealously guarding their own.
What unfolded after that, was basically a bed Europe had made for themselves, and with WW1, Versailles (and others like Saint-Germaine, or Trianon) and WW2, had to sleep in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ideology
Source: Dictionary
noun
1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of democracy"
Similar: beliefs, ideas, ideals
This "box" called "TV" billions bow down to, has got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives in sinecure comfort...
Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders who appear to them in these "boxes". The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should sent "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) to kill for, is democracy in colusion with corporatism, and the slogan they chant is "Make the world safe for democracy".
Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders constantly lie and call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One ideal, must be wrong.
When one criticizes an ideologue's ideology, they expose their true nature.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danedds1068 Of course, every single citizen should be able to have personal convictions, follow a religion or sect, no matter how outlandish. That is entirely not my point.
Again. There are certain jobs, in which one's personal opinions should not stand in the way of doing the job.
To show what I mean, let's look at Kim Davis, the employee who refused to issue a marriage certificate to a gay couple, because it was against her personal convictions?
Right or wrong?
That is the other extreme (slippery slope) of the precedent this politician wishes to achieve.
IMO, politicians should serve the people (all people) regardless of their own personal opinions. A Jewish politician, if he should be voted into power, should not be able to forbid Christians from working on Saturdays, and Christians not forbid anybody from working on Sundays (personal convictions), etc.
Personal convictions should not interfere with the jobs of doctors, soldiers, police officers....and politicians.
They are paid by the public , to serve the public. If not, they should work as a lobbyist or influencer, with private income.
Politicians get paid by my taxes, they are not "businesspeople".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I see.... The USA has the most powerful "weapon" on its side: feelings.
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even in hindsight, it was not a mistake.
Unfortunately, the way the world had been set up post-WW1, there was no alternative to appeasing Hitler.
And even those relying on "Churchill" (aka "the hardliner") for their alternative istory, must admit reality.
If in power, Churchill would have done the same as Chamberlain, because (reality) the British Prime Minister doesn't have the authority to declare war out of the blue, and that would have depended on how the ministers would have debated it out...
The second "reality" was that in 1938, the Legion Condor was in Spain, next to Gibraltar (15,000 well-trained and combat ready soldiers with tanks and air support). Also, an Italian dictator keen on "Mare Nostrum" and a Spain which would have liked Gibraltar back....hmmm....
Churchill of course, was a naval strategist.
1) Would Churchill (a navy guy) have risked losing Gibraltar to "protect little nations"?
2) What would the lords in London have thought about "protecting little nations"?
3) And even if they did value "little nations" enough to declare war on their behalf, what would have been the first military/strategic priority had it come to war in 1938?
Especially the last one being not a difficult question to answer...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ideology
Source: Dictionary
noun
1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of democracy"
Similar: beliefs, ideas, ideals
This "box" called "TV" billions bow down to, has got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives in sinecure comfort...
Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders who appear to them in these "boxes". The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should sent "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) to kill for, is democracy in colusion with corporatism, and the slogan they chant is "Make the world safe for democracy".
Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders constantly lie and call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One ideal, must be wrong.
When one criticizes an ideologue's ideology, they expose their true nature.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar.
Washington DC s strategy is constant, using a geographical position of power.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equilibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to, and gaslighting the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequilibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equilibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The "divide and control/rule/conquer"-world is intact. It is practically as old as modern civilisation, and has never been defeated. Those with true power will do their utmost to ensure that the "divide and rule"-world we live in today, will rule for all times, because the DIVIDERS win, if all others fail.
The divide-and-rule system is a formless headless global system composed of every imaginable race, religion, ethnicity, language group, class, creed as an "ingroup" of power. This ingroup which intends to DIVIDE emergent unity elsewhere, contains all forms of "personal conviction" as "-ism" imaginable, with only a little input from top tiers.
Their aim is division.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What history?
You mean like 2,000 years ago, when their "god" chased them out of their fairy tale Stoneage holy land?
Actually, that isn't history.
The reality is that they were thrown out or left in 3 waves, the last wave by Italians (Romans).
So, for 2,000 years the Religion of Judaism was only around 5% of the local population. The majority then became Christian (Byzantine) and later Muslims (Ottoman Empire).
In the meantime, the "diaspora" intermingled with the local populations of Europe, and other places they immigrated to, and today their maternal DNA today diluted down to 80% European, and only 8% of the original Levant Semites.
So yeah...I know history....
1
-
1
-
They are thieves with a myth, and legends.
Nothing to admire.
Ah, I see... you admire thieves?
According to the logic of the Zionists, Norwegians have a right to demand living in Nova Scotia, and declare their own state there. All they need to do is recreate some ancient myths, and find some ancestral graves.
Then, arrive in droves with guns, and start displacing the local population.
All they have to do is create a myth of "returning home", and that they are really only "taking back" what "Thor gave his chosen people"...
Correct?
Do Norwegians have a Thor-given "right" to "return" to Canada today, because of "being first" 1,000 years ago?
[Google "Vinland Nova Scotia Vikings]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andreaswinsnes6944 Yes, correct.
What you wrote about China is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today.
Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the little minions benefiting from imperialism to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) into crises, wars, or other form of interference. Then use the little minions to destabilize an entire region, or as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regiins as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc.
No way China will not have learnt the historical lesson, and allow history to repeat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, a perfect short explanation of one of the oldest forms of resistance against outside meddling.
"BALANCE OF POWER, a phrase in international law for such a “just equilibrium” between the members of the family of nations as should prevent any one of them from becoming sufficiently strong to enforce its will upon the rest. The principle involved in this, as Hume pointed out in his Essay on the Balance of Power, is as old as history, and was perfectly familiar to the ancients both as political theorists and as practical statesmen. In its essence it is no more than a precept of commonsense born of experience and the instinct of self-preservation; for, as Polybius very clearly puts it (lib. i. cap. 83): “Nor is such a principle to be despised, nor should so great a power be allowed to any one as to make it impossible for you afterwards to dispute with him on equal terms concerning your manifest rights.” (Wiki, similar Britannica, etc.)
A "balance of power"-logic, has NOTHING to do with imperialism. It is the exact opposite.
Create a just balance of all powers, if not, suffer the consequences.
The concept of the "balance of powers" can of course easily be misinterpreted, or be intentionally misconstrued, as the "other side" (ingroup vs. outgroup dynamics) being imperialist, or wanting to "rule the world." In that manner, the own (ingroup) imperialism, or wish to rule and dominate the world can be hidden. Notice how in books and debates, the "soft words" are often elevated in importance, because the dissenters think that the world was built on soft words...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correct.
She should have voted against or abstained, and keep her personal convictions out of a political decisions.
Fact is, Chow started it, by linking a political decision she took (simulated on campus) to a choice she made for others. Note, not for herself. For others
Here is what she wrote, linking her personal belief system, to a political decision she made: “As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true,” Chow wrote. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman.
Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
The US is based on the understanding that the "pursuit of life, liberty and happiness" is everybody's right, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. As an aspiring politician, she should honor the separation of church and state, and she should therefore have left her personal beliefs and judgement of others out of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wmthewyld I've already said several times, that EVERYBODY has the same rights.
I have said several times, that EVERYBODY has the same rights to pursue "life, liberty and happiness".
That, counts for ALL.
It counts for Christians, Jews, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Native Americans, atheists, Scientologists, immigrants, LGBTQ community, hippies, farmers....rich, poor, you name it....get it? EVERYBODY.
If your idea of "happiness" means taking away the rights of others to pursue their idea of "life, liberty, and happiness", well...screw you. Your fluffy FEELINGS are not protected by the Constitution.
Your particular "god" is not protected by the Constitution. You have the right to practice any religion, and pray to your version of invisible guy in the sky whichever way you like (within the laws of the land), but the moment you try to restrict others in their pursuit of life according to their wishes, then expect to be called out for it...
Leave others alone, and you will be left alone.
Don't try that "confusing cause and effect"- trick on me.
Chow started it, by trying to rescind Title IX protection for fellow students, and linking that decision to her personal convictions.
1
-
1
-
The Chinese (a variety of ethnic groups, religions and linguistically related peoples in East Asia) were collectively wise enough to wake up out of their own CENTURY OF HUMILIATION and create a strong unity, as a balance of power with a single front door for own interests (Beijing).
CHINESE CENTURY OF HUMILIATION
For that historical analysis, one must first become realistic about the forces which were imposed on the Chinese ruling systems from OUTSIDE. During these roughly 100 years, OUTSIDERS used China as playground and a battlefield of systems/ideologies. After China started rising in power again after the 1970s, the OUTSIDERS (imperialist powers not from this region) intended to REPEAT their previous "success" of rule by division. Break up China, into smaller administrative regions, surround and encroach on them with military bases in neighbouring states like Vietnam (admitted by Robert McNamara), and become yet again easy to rule, dominate and use as steered TOOLS from outside by a variety of means (money, ideology, etc.). Forces of OUTSIDE division, do not DIVIDE other regions of the planet because they care about the "locals" living on the territories they wish to squeeze the resources from. These OUTSIDERS divide others because it reduces their collective power, and for own interests of gain models (cyclic dynamical systems of gain). One must also first become realistic with regards to what strategies of powers were employed by the "sides".
DIVIDE-AND-RULE ELABORATED AS IMPOSED ONTO CHINA DURING THIS ERA
"The policy which Britain has been pursuing for the last two centuries has brought her prosperity and greatness. After each victory, Britain seems, on the surface to have gained for herself no advantage whatever; all she did, she claimed to be an act of international chivalry and justice but a deeper analysis of British statesmen's claims reveals that they never speak the truth. Britain's key policy is to attack the strongest country with the help of weaker countries and then to join the weakened enemy in checking the growth of other countries and so on, and so on. British foreign policy has remained basically unchanged for two centuries. When Britain befriends or colonizes another country, the purpose is not to maintain a cordial friendship for the sake of friendship but to utilize that country as a tool to fight all threats to her supremacy. Therefore Britain always remains in a commanding position by making other countries fight her wars while she herself reaps the fruits of victory." Taken from The Vital Problem of China by Sun Yat-Sen, 1917
Virtually a template that describes every aspect of the divide-and-rule strategy, and that Europeans could have learned from, but never did, until all went down.
Unlike the Chinese, Europeans didn't learn the lesson.
THE EUROPEAN CENTURY OF HUMILIATION (1914 - today/ongoing)
The above template can be juxtaposed onto Europe (a variety of ethnic groups, religions and linguistically related peoples in Europe/Eurasia). Just like in China during its "Century of Humiliation" (1839-1947), in Europe, the local political forces which strove to put Europe First, as balance to the Wilsonian "America First" had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER during the 20th and 21st centuries. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for European interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside imperialist powers and their proxy domination. During these roughly 100 years after the 1890s, the European playgrounds were a battlefield of systems/ideologies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correct.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Back in the 1990s Tel Aviv was sneakily trying to introduce Apartheid, at the same time South Africa was busy ending it under international pressure. Of course, Israel was (according to imperialist logic) "doing nothing wrong"...
At the time the world was applauding South Africa as it ended Apartheid, and simultaneously the world was applauding Israel's attempt at introducing Apartheid, branding it as just "trying to create peace."
Note, whilst singling out the Palestinians/Arafat as being "unreasonable" and "rejecting the Israeli olive leaf of peace...blah, blah..." as the accepted narrative of the Mainstream Media.
Israel never intended for Palestinians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, "We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [edit: the historical examples being the "Apartheid dependencies," of the "Bantustan"] ... and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines ... The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term ... Jerusalem (would be) united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty ... will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev. We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth."
All the questionable clauses, eluding reality by use of the typical vague political doublespeak, have been highlighted.
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control. What that would have meant, we see today. Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city.
Notice how Rabin, commonly held as a dove in politics, never used the term "full sovereign state" when he referred to this "Palestine", but the term "less than a state." Did you spot the use of [Israel's] "natural growth"? Critical question... Where to? Where would Israelis/Zionists "naturally grow" to, if there were equal neighbours, as a balanced power, which could actually stop any such Zionist settler "growth". The Jordan Valley, extends BOTH sides of the Jordan River. Now, I'm sure that was just another slip-up too, of people who don't understand simple geography. Whatever. It is fairly clear what they wanted, and there are historical examples for this: the "pool of cheap labor" within the own borders, as the concept of the "Bantustan" was for the RSA, given a little bit of "independence" to manage some of the own affairs, but de facto/de jure powerless to stop the CONTROLLING power, intended to be Jerusalem, as Jweish capital city with the right to introduce permit laws, etc. It is literally what RSA did with their "Bantustans". Back then the people could not be fooled. They saw through the deceit, and rightfully called it out for what it was: just another Apartheid ploy to avoid the rise of political equals.
Sad reality? Today masses of fools are being mislead into praising Israel's attempted implementation of Apartheid as an attempt at peace, while at the same time denouncing a similar scheme actually implemented by the RSA in stages after WW2, as being bigoted/racist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Drachinifel What was the REAL "lesson" of the Barbary Wars, and the subsequent series of events?
What is the strategic lesson almost no historian ever talks about?
Answer: the price of not unifying to speak with a single voice.
First they (outside powers, more or less "united" in a cause), came for the Barbary States.
The last one to "go" was Morocco, finally "carved up" by European powers, in conjunction with the USA, in 1911.
Last to "go" was The Ottoman Empire, in WW1.
From "empire" to "Turkey" (post WW1) in around 200 years.
Later this maxim of POWER would repeat again, and again.
The price of not uniting in time.
This is regardless of any "feelings."
Since "facts" (strategy) count higher than "feelings."
Same as the Ottoman Empire failed to unite into a single cohesive "united states" speaking with a single voice, and neither did Europe, so the USA could pick them apart piecemeal...
First to "go" was Spain.
First the USA came for Spain, but the rest of Europe was like "I don't care, I'm not the Spanish Empire..."
Lastly, they came for the British Empire, but there was nobody left to speak for them...
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
-----------------------------------
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Not Buy: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," buy 2nd hand quality products, or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just "not buy" ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join "not buy", because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, nothing has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by "not buying" all big brands. Start "not buying" them all.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@notbuyingit7093 Google the "Sword of Damocles".
As a person serving NATO, you are sadly uninformed about the way the world functions.
The USA, and by extension, it's military, see every international organisation as merely a tool of own interests.
NATO?
Does not serve US interests?
Time to leave.
Yes, agreed.
I already wrote that the world would be a better place without constant US meddling, but only if there is a follow up (for example the UN).
If the US leaves without first empowering a follow up organisation, there will be a "power vacuum".
Russia and China flexing their muscles (including, but not limited to "excursions" into sovereign airspace) is an effect of US Middle East policy.
I've already addressed this.
They are stating the following "you mess in my sphere of interest? Fine...tit for tat."
They are basically stating "You do it. We do it too."
Today, the ME is a contested sphere of influence between Washington (and her lap dogs) and Moscow/Beijing (and their lap dogs).
That is the big picture.
Russia sending bombers to Venezuela, and China establishing a naval base in Djibouti, are merely effects of this power struggle.
Simple answer?
If three kids are fighting about the same toy spade in a sand box, then take it away from all three
If not, you might one day be faced with the same age-old dilemma of having too many irons in the oven...or as Friedrich the Great commented "He tried to defend everything, and thus defended nothing".
1
-
@notbuyingit7093 Then we are in agreement about self-serving organisations the US only supports because of own interests, and not deeply held beliefs.
If the US wants to leave NATO.
Fine.
30 years too late if you ask me, because NATO already lost it's reason d'etre after the fall of the Warsaw Pact 30 years ago, and has since only served the purpose of imposing own interests.
That is my entire point about "causality"
NATO still existing in it's current form without a real enemy for 30 years, is what caused the current rise of Moscow, and might even drive Moscow and Beijing into a military alliance.
[aka "causality"]
Trump is an idiot.
He doesn't have a clue how the world works, and stomps around like in one of the boardrooms of the companies he bunkrupted.
Follow him like a lemming, and you'll go over the cliff.
He is under the influence of ear-whisperers, making the real policy decisions behind closed doors
Everything I wrote is relevant to our discussion, because it is about how the world functions.
[your complaint about Russian jets for example is 1) falls under "Sword of Domocles" (aka "silent or unspoken threat") and 2) an effect of own policies in the ME. It's a global world, with global players, and modern global militarist agitators = nothing happens in a bubble.]
That is how the world works.
Policies determine history, not leaders.
And...in case you're still interested, you can read about it in a "history book" in 20 years time....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@notbuyingit7093 I have already answered every one of your questions, including Eastern Ukraine.
Scroll up. I wrote to grant to others the same as one wishes for oneself...freedom, liberty, and the right to choose one's own political destiny.
It was the west that did not do this concerning the Krim (90% Russian speaking/cultural background) and Eastern Ukraine (between 20 and 50% Russian, depending on the region).
It was the west which insisted on the historical borders of the Ukraine, despite the fact that Stalin-era mass population exchanges had long delegitimized such concepts.
It was the west (incl. the USA) which caused "a crisis" where none should have been.
The simple answer should have been to let the people choose their own political Destiny, including redrawing borders if necessary.
Strange, how this isn't considered unthinkable when it comes to Sudan (South Sudan as a new border), or letting people choose their own political destiny in Europe (Scottish referendum, and many other examples).
So why is it that the same logic does not apply to Russia and Russians?
[Again, please address this, as I have addressed your questions. If you consider one of your questions unanswered, please state which one. Also, please avoid the "gish gallop", because these long comments often include several diverging points which are possible to address in one comment. Note, I've written several responses, according to topic]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East and West, our own "attitude problem" re. "using soldiers to fight wars on civilians" the same.
Soooo
Franklin "first we made the commies strong, then we sang the Nam songs" Roosevelt
...teamed up with ...
Curtis "first we made it rain fire, then we got stuck in commie mire" LeMay
What could possibly go wrong?
The USA could have, and should have offered a conditional surrender, and used Japan as a bullwark against communism in Asia.
By 1945, Japan was already militarily defeated.
In both theatres of war, our leaders stupidly thought they could handle the commies and make little deals with Stalin.
"Feeding the crocodile with "little nations" hoping the crocodile would eat you last".
rotfl
And what happened?
Kicked out of China.
War in Korea. Still in Korea.
Then kicked out of Vietnam.
Hundreds of proxy wars on every continent.
Thousands dead, billions of dollars wasted during the Cold War.
Now "Chy-naaah" is a problem? Well, "reap as you sow" counts for all, or so the saying goes.
The Taiwan crisis? South China Sea? Suck it up, snowflakes....
Blow all your dollahs on patrolling the world...
A causal effect of a totally failed grand strategy.
The oldest war grand strategies are still valid.
"In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good." Sun Tzu, The Art of War
The mistake was thinking that "total war" invalidates age-old wisdom.
1
-
Globalism/imperialism created all of its own enemies. Everything the USA /collective West is fighting/combatting these days, they created themselves in the past.
------------------------
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it is the only strategy which can be invisibly employed in times of war, and in times of peace.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
Globalism/imperialism created all of its own enemies. Everything the USA /collective West is fighting/combatting these days, they created themselves in the past.
------------------------
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it is the only strategy which can be invisibly employed in times of war, and in times of peace.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh, it is far, far worse...
Alongside other measures, the Balfour Declaration/Sykes-Picot was a "divide and rule"-strategy, by outside powers, intent on gaining power by dividing the Semetic peoples of the Levant. This simple statement or theory, can be validated by simply investigating the events 100 years ago, and cutting out the distortions created by "dissention" (note: "sowing dissention" in systems, is a means used in the "divide an rule"-technique).
There is a saying stating that if one cannot explain something in a few minutes, that it is probably false.
The divide and rule strategy of and over the peoples of these ex-ottoman provinces, can be explained in a few seconds: With declarations/top-down decisions such as Balfour and Sykes-Picot, the Semetic peoples of the Levant were "divided" with "rulings".
After the European empires weakened, the USA took over, implementing the exact same strategy of power.
In a recent talk at the International Conference for Peace in Vienna (June 2023) Professor Jeffrey Sachs spoke with Dr. Heinz Gärtner, regarding recent political developments in Europe and the world. In this talk, Prof. Sachs briefly mentions the current strategy behind Washington DC's policy for Europe, which is the age-old "divide and rule/conquer"-technique.
In US domestic politics: "We have to defeat this divide-and-rule strategy, which goes back thousands of years. That’s how the few CONTROL the many. Yes, there are divisions over reproductive rights and gun control, but many policies that would transform this country get combined Left-Right support." (combined left-right support = "unity")
Four time US presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, Sun Magazine interview, 2019
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl/Historian)
Today, the USA has practically admitted that it misuses smaller nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the current war in the Ukraine:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.” Taken from a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region. In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script". Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" or "using little nations" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
Some things never change...
"The policy which Britain has been pursuing for the last two centuries has brought her prosperity and greatness. After each victory, Britain seems, on the surface to have gained for herself no advantage whatever; all she did, she claimed to be an act of international chivalry and justice but a deeper analysis of British statesmen's claims reveals that they never speak the truth. Britain's key policy is to attack the strongest country with the help of weaker countries and then to join the weakened enemy in checking the growth of other countries and so on, and so on. British foreign policy has remained basically unchanged for two centuries. When Britain befriends or colonizes another country, the purpose is not to maintain a cordial friendship for the sake of friendship but to utilize that country as a tool to fight all threats to her supremacy. Therefore Britain always remains in a commanding position by making other countries fight her wars while she herself reaps the fruits of victory." Taken from The Vital Problem of China by Sun Yat-Sen, 1917
Should we eternally defend these long-dead historical "lords" who sacrificed pawns so their own crumbling "Empire" could survive a few more years?
Whilst these "fine gentlemen" in suites and bowler hats, scrambled to invent tax havens to safeguard the riches they had looted and raked in for a few hundred years, they used emotional arguments to cause outrage in times of crises, or sent the lower classes scrambling for the muddy trenches in times of war...
These tax havens they created spared their own obscene wealth, while the middle-classes and poor "masses" bore the burden of "Empire".
These fine elites sacrificed pawns following a "priority list": first to go were the "pawns" abroad, then followed by such in the own country, while skimming the cream off the top for themselves.
After WW1, they already knew "Empire" was on the way out, but preferred playing the game (strategies) with human lives just a little longer.
(Evidence: Search for The Spider's Web documentary on the Timeline Channel, here on YT).
Though it isn't possible to say when the American Century will go down in the same way as the British Empire once did, I will predict what will happen.
Maybe it will last another dozen years.
Maybe two-dozen.
Maybe even another fifty years...
Who knows?
Whatever.
The first "hedge fund manager"-types are already betting against the US dollar as the world reserve currency.
Such "hewoes" and "patwiots", lol
They will take their accrued "assets", and and the obscene wealth and profits raked in over the past American Century, to tax havens WHEN America's "century" implodes: leaving millions of middle-class and poor Americans to rub their eyes while wondering wtf happened...
History will repeat itself, unless the hegemon changes its deceitful ways (Google: "What does the Bible say about deceitful friends", to discover how history repeats itself in endless cycles).
The Founding Fathers once described London as “rich, proud, hectoring, swearing, squibbing, carnivorous” (Jefferson), therefore the perfect type of character flaws in a nation's leadership which one can "smear honey around the mouth", then infiltrate and then overpower: Which is what the USA did after 1895, "starting" with the first Venezuela Crisis.
Didn't anybody notice?
Washington DC sold out the "protection" they had offered to a "little nation" called Venezuela in the form of the Monroe Doctrine, as a sacrificial gift to London, and a "friendship" which could drive a wedge between arising European attempts at more unity.
Nope.
Nobody noticed.
Today, the new rich, proud, hectoring, swearing, squibbing, carnivorous "rulers of the world" in Washington DC are imitating exactly what they critized a quarter of a century before.
1
-
1
-
Crises and wars is what one gets if one wants to rip/deceive a "sphere of influence" out of the hands of a rival.
WW1 came about because Imperialist Russia wanted to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence out of the hands of" Austria-Hungary.
It "started" with a slug-out between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, and "ended" in WW1.
WW2 came about because of Hitler/Nazi Germany and Stalin/the SU wanting to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence out of the hands of" the West/empires (GB/France)".
It "started" with a slug-out between Germany and Poland, and "ended" in WW2.
The War in the Ukraine came about because the USA/West/NATO wanted to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence" out of the hands of Russia.
It "started" with a slug-out between the Ukraine and pro-Russian seperatists proxies (fueled by the USA/West/NATO), and will end in a "2nd Cold War" (hopefully "only" a "cold war").
An eternal game...
Friends one day, enemies the next, friends one day, enemies the next, friends one day, enemies the next...
Why bother trying to read "25,000 books" (Christopher Clark) only about a specific topic, say WW1?
Why philosophize endlessly about whether it is "one left arm" or "only one ball" which "starts wars", if one can simply point at "greed" or the desire to "rule" over others?
Irrelevant of the context and time (truisms). Leaders "defending the indefensible" will always be around.
"Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible – there will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain." - 06/09/2022 Rep. Elizabeth Cheney (R) Wyoming
They were there 100 years ago, and they were there 20 years ago when war could have been avoided by simply being honorable and stopping the ongoing process of "sphere of influence" stealing, using every trick in the book to disguise their actions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ryucartel351 Yes, of course.
I agree.
Everybody has the "right to pursue happiness" as ever he/she sees fit (within the laws of the land of course.
My personal "pursuit of happiness" is to be kind to others, and thereby contribute to a peaceful society.
Whether the "delusions" of others fit my own personal convictions, is irrelevant.
I'll be kind, no matter how "delusional" I personally think somebody is...
Therefore I'll call a judge "Your honor" even though it isn't "an honor" to meet him, or a policeman "Sir", even though he was never knighted and therefore isn't a "Sir"....lol
I guess you'll call your gf "doll" if she likes it...even if she isn't one, or at least I hope not...lmao
Your teacher "mam", a guy in a black coat "Reverent Jones", and so on....and so on...
Personally, I believe that everybody who believes he was created out of mud by a hitherto unseen nothing, is deluded. I'll call the leader of such "believers" reverent, Rabbi, or whatever they wish.
Because the number of "delusions" is certainly infinite....
I don't care about the personal convictions of another human being.
Nothing can stop me from being nice (unless a physical attack, of course).
Or would you refuse any these above mentioned their requests, if they ask you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A "tool" of empires, explaining why he thinks other "tools" hate him.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," buy 2nd hand quality products, or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Boycott, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting all "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
This is the theory.
According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules.
According to the concept of "meaning of words" all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life (50% for us, the minority), on ALL tiers, often by force, coercian, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world).
That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power).
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Feb 17, 2024 — 'If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu,' says US Secretary of State Blinken...
Remember the names of all their "lunches."
Remember all their victims.
As millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy. All around the world, millions of others like Aaron Bushell have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Eastern Europe and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
Any documentary only covering Versailles is far too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture. Simply a look at a small pixel of the larger image, and therefore too "compartmentalized".
Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, ALL Europeans lost.
WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and Great Britain off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted.
WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that Atlanticists (the naval powers) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination.
In the end ALL Europeans lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After the Cold War this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards.
Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain.
1
-
I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc...
Sorry to burst your bubble.
I've got some bad news for all you "never gonna fight"-fanboys.
YOU. WILL. GO.
Of course these hundreds of comments by Americans and Canadians mirror the comments made by hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favourite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the leadup to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power (in stages after 1890), in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) and their "buck-catchers", nodded off by the "buck passers" which hold the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains.
Guess who "wins"?
The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
1
-
The Balfour Declaration's goal was to form an enclave of Europeans in the Levant at a strategically vital location: near the Suez Canal. These whites would receive "papers" telling them it was "their" land. Ronald Storrs: "[A] little loyal Jew!sh Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism."
In BOTH cases (Europe/carved up island and people of Ireland, and the Levant, as carved up people), this was, and still is, divide-and-rule.
Grant favor to some, in return for favors. This is "transactional politics," which aims to divide according to set parameters and criteria, practiced by man-made systems of power, and has nothing to do with spirituality, which aims to unite human beings.
Favoratism of loyalists to a man-made system (empires): Look for it and discover hidden examples of the strategy to rule by division.
If mankind really wanted to, they could set up a unified Arabian Peninsula, based on the "God" they have in common.
But it is men, with their "gods" (not capitalized) who do not WANT a united Arabian Pininsula.
Israel is setting out in the footsteps of its imperialist creators to create "Greater Israel" on the Arabian Pininsula, just like the USA set out to create "Greater USA" (after 1776, and at the expense of its neighbors in N.America.).
Israel is following in the footsteps of its imperialist creators from Europe.
In North America, the USA followed in the footsteps of its imperialist creators from Europe.
Same storyline for the plebs, different region of the globe. In all cases, a fellowship of European settlers and favored proxies "created" the expanding empire (on the smaller scale of Ireland, the "empire loyalists" served the function of dividing powers for the British Empire/London). With regards to the current setup, everybody who is not completely blind knows that without any US/collective Western aid (various forms, incl. but not limited to, "nodding off"/tacit consent of a nuclear strike), that the proxy Israel would collapse in a few weeks in a fair fight (same as the Ukraine, and a surefire way to discover "dog" and "tail" in the games of power dynamics).
That makes it a proxy war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Advice for the inhabitants of Greenland.
When your new "friends" come, please, please bow down and smile along, just like Hawaiians did 150 years ago (post-1850s). Then, you'll the be "good people," on the crucial "right side of history." Don't be naughty like the islanders of Puerto Rico 100 years ago and create resistance movements. Remember, when the money elites come from major US and other cities, to buy up and OWN everything around you, try not to be obstinate. Just give up all your prime ancestral lands to these outsiders and multi-national corporations, and don't resist.
Dear Greenlanders, for inside these two "histories" (Hawaii, Puerto Rico) you can see your future which will rhyme, when your "friends" arrive on your shores with their shareholder "meets & greets" and the political "grips & grabs" for the cameras, for the adoring crowds back home. In 10, 20, or 30 years' time, forget about an affordable health insurance, 'cos think about the bright side: you'll have McDonalds on every corner, and Red Dye 40 poisoning your kids. Laws? Hahahaaa... Who needs laws, if you got "guns and freedom baby".
When they come to your shores, because "it's all legal now, cos we made the rules", they are not going to "see" what you lost, but they will concentrate on what they themselves can GAIN, and history will rhyme.
Dear Greenlanders. So you think you have a European strong big brother protecting you? Think again, because so did Hawaiians (British Empire), before all the "friends" came with their super dealmakers (see The Great Rapprochement/1895, as "friends" simply made deals at faraway green tables, and YOU were the one sold out).
Oh, and dear Greenlanders, don't go on the wrong track and think "capitalism," promises made, and signed agreements are actually important. See the histories of the First Nations of North America and their 350 signed accords... or the artificially created "Panama" as exemplary. A hundred years ago, the minor powers in Colombia dared thinking they could determine the price tag themselves, at a time they were still called "Colombians". Now, they are not "Colombians" anymore and today there are countless American imperialist voices all over the internet already loudly complaining how they want "their" canal "back", and there are more than sufficient voices from the mommy's basements actually thinking "he" built it, or "he" paid for it...
And when they set out imperialist/militarist Smedley-Butler-style just remember that systemically (grand strategy/geopolitics) nobody cares.
You are the game to these people.
They don't care about you.
Your future on their marching route, depends on how you resist.
What they care about, is what is UNDER your feet, as resources or the strategic location on the map.
It's about MONEY and POWER and LAND. This story will rhyme eternally whilst the MSM sings the tune of "justice" and "freedom".
Today, many Americans stuck in their daily grind ask themselves why all these US dollars are being globally spread so copiously all over the world as they personally struggle to cope, whilst their government/elites are funding dictators and democracies alike, funding peace and war at the same time, funding corruption with one hand while fighting it with the other, paying for destruction over there and reconstruction somewhere else. All they have to do is read their history. It was never different at any point in history. Because the elites playing global divide-and-rule comes with a "price tag": YOU.
Victorian Era Brits should know. They also wallowed in poverty, as their Empire "ruled the world" from a position of power, with division, and their rulers did the same.
Dear Greenlanders.
The future of Greenland is the past of Hawaii.
Imperialism never ended.
Read the books on strategy and the allegories about power, and read them as INTENDED, not as somebody interprets them FOR you...
Machiavelli stated that it is the "princes" (connected to the lands, often hereditary gatekeepers) who actually cared about a region, because these regions were the centers of their own "insider" wealth/power. But when the "mercenaries" (foreigners, vested interests) arrive, as foreigners who are in it only for the profit/gain, that is when entire regions are dragged down in circles of international corruption. When the "mercenaries" of international hedge funds, mining companies, foreign armies, foreign-approved politicians, and other examples of ivory towers ("revolving doors" models of power) step in and build up, you will not rid yourself of these (mostly) outsiders easily again.
They covet thy land and its resources, and will get it. A tale as old as the Bible. Esau and Jacob is of course a cautionary tale to beware of brothers who come to you with a GIFT which has morphed over time and now means "winning means everything". Note that in this biblical "tale" about eternal deceit and "cheating own brothers out of their inheritance", that the deceiver is the hero of the story. Those who end up with the RICHES under your feet, are the heroes. The deceiver's name and slimy ways continue. Esau the inheritor and his father's favourite, as a name has sorta died out. Just remember, wherever you live, that you just a "dog" in a "manger" (Churchill), and that the RESOURCES intended to be passed onto you as natural inheritance, belong to the OUTSIDERS, in the OUTSIDERS heads, and according to the strategies of these OUTSIDERS. The "smooth talking good guy", the spiffy clean deceiver, scamming his own brother, whilst arguing like a woman creating division within unity and creating the BLACK LEGEND of his brother (the "bad guy"), is the "hero" of history. Very telling indeed.
Dear Greenlanders. You might not like your current status quo as European/Danish territory. The "game" for CONTROL already started a dozen years ago as "history" rhyming. Your future is the past of Hawaii, whose history of foreign domination and CONTROL (divide-and-rule) started as foreign meddling around the 1850s, in slow methodical steps, and with gathering momentum following the 1890's. Once the locusts of capitalism have grazed everything off so these stakeholders benefit themselves and global shareholders far away, then you might just think back about the proverb by the Cree nation (attr.): “Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@manilajohn0182 Yes correct.
Of course, Washington DC knew of the perfidious nature of the European empires, incl. London/British Empire.
And of course if London and Washington were such "great friends" as our history wish to lead us to believe, then why on earth would Washington DC have kicked the meddling "London lord"-types off the American continent?
After 2 wars (1776 and 1812), and London initially siding against Washington DC during the American Civil War and the Mexican American War (later on), it was obviously quite clear to Washington DC that London was a meddling "perfidious Albion" trying to gain a foothold on the North American continent, and turning it into a "Europe 2.0".
Luckily for the American people, the USA had "weak neighbors to the north and south, and only fish on both sides" (loosely quoting Bismarck).
Imagine if Canada and Mexico/Spain had been stronger, and not been "weak neighbors"...
You would have been turned into a "Europe 2.0", with London "hopping on the scale this side or that", during war as well as during peace, just "balancing powers", as they proudly self-confessed to doing across the English Channel.
1
-
@manilajohn0182 Yes. A complex topic.
People though, with a similar belief system can breach the language barrier.
As far as i'm concerned, the biblical "Tower of Babel" did not fail because of "languages" suddenly popping up, but that the "languages" (in the story) are simply symbolic for how large "projects" (Tower of Babel, the EU, whatever), might fail, because as the "project" grows in proportions, so do all the negative human characteristics. The ones you've mentioned, to which I could add a few more -- greed, the narcissism of some nations, the issue of "who's the boss", control-freak instincts, etc.
IMO, the biggest reason for the failure of a potentially possible "EU" back then, was a lack of urgency.
There simply wasn't a common enemy which would unite all the divergent agendas, as during the Cold War.
Since they only had each other to glare at, all sides pouring fortunes into arms races, Europeans only had other Europeans to focus onto.
If the "Tower of Babel" which is the EU fails again, it will most likely also be because there is no longer such a common enemy, which creates a powerful urge to stand united, which crosses boundries (culture, languages, ethnicity, history, etc.).
The "Russia/Putin" (largely fabricated) "threat" doesn't seem to do the trick.
It divides more than it unites.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"God" is the original "divider" using favoratism ("chosen ones"). The technique is to get mankind to do the exact opposite as stated in the 10 Commandments, thereby initiating the divide-and-rule technique of gain: deceive men to lie, steal, ki!!, bow down to money and other human beings, idolize wealth, idolize man-made systems, and covet the resources below the feet of others, then bear false witness with regards to what they initiated...
》》》》》》》》》》》》》
The powerful have used the strategy of divide-and-rule for thousands of years to drive a wedge between peoples.
As Johann Wolfgang von Goethe noted back then: "Divide and rule, calls the politician; unite and lead, is the slogan of the wise."
Some politicians and rulers may do this innocently and without thinking, but most know exactly what they are doing with their divisive tongues and their line-drawing divisions. It is their most successful technique that allows them to rule over us by preventing greater unity among people. This allows them to skim off enormous wealth from the gross national product that actually belongs to all people. If it is important to you, forward this message to others. Unite with those you are ordered to hate, according to Goethe because this is the counter strategy of "the wise". We should not allow them to continue winning in the same way for the next thousand years.
Divide-and-rule.
Draw lines, then set the people up against each other.
If there is a problem, blame somebody else.
That is the historical Albion's way.
Incredible how many can be deceived for so long.
Before 1945 it was mainly the British- and French Empires which kept conflicts alive by drawing lines in favor of one group over the other. Other Europeans and later the USA joined in ("collective West" as mutually beneficial cyclic dynamical systems of gain). The lines were often randomly drawn through tribes, through religious- or ethnic groups, to favor either the one, then the other. This created volatile hot spots of ethnic conflicts to use as pretext for intervention and occupation as the moral "rule maker". After 1945 the USA simply took over as "divider-in-chief". The new Albion.
The New Testament is the antithesis of the Old Testament with regards to the message. The ambiguity between the two books, hopping from one to the other, is exploited to confuse and mislead...
1
-
1
-
The USA/collective West is like the allegory of the unbalanced spinning washing machine. Their entire mechanism is to avoid balance, therefore exploiting eternal domestic/international crises/violence is the name of the game. The load inside totally unaware of the "Why?".
___________________
Because..."avoid" is all the machine ever does.
AVOID THE EQUILLIBRIUM
That is the sole aim of the "affairs of the city" which is per definition the system of politics.
Divide and conquer works because not everyone involved knows that they are taking on a role in a power game. That's how the strategy works. Very few people really need to understand it. In English, the principle is called "Useful Innocent/Useful Idiot." From a position of power, you can animate people (usually through money, or ideology) who play a role, but they know not what they do.
The peoples in your "neck o' the woods," have been ruled by division since the beginning.
Because it's easier to divide people based on personal differences than to unite them based on their similarities. Strategically ambivalent elites use this to their own advantage. Now the intention is simply to avoid the unity in your society, in order to "rule" over the dissenters, which is the classic "divide and conquer" principle. This strategy is kept under wraps, due to a systemic desire to be "good", and on the "right side of history", and therefore overemphasizing the actions of philanthropists, political doves, peace activists, religious leaders, etc.
At the same time the activities of political hawks sowing divisions are downplayed, relativized, apologized for, mostly by politicians and strategists as the "story tellers" of history. But also by commoners, who simply parrot the stories without thinking them through, and who are NOT privy to the overall strategy (divide-and-rule in all its intricacies and nuances).
The main interest of these people for which we have been fighting wars for centuries has been the relationships between organized systems of finance and power, and systems of resources and manpower. Because united they are the only power that could threaten this group. They must make sure that the unity of others does not happen. ... For these elites ... the greatest fear is an overall creation of a unity of technology, capital and natural resources, and labor, as the only combination that has frightened the elites for centuries. So how does this play out? Well, they have already put their cards on the tilted table. They draw their invisible lines onto society.
Today all our so-called "leaders" are too weak to create systemic unity, to avoid their "friends" simply drawing lines all over the place, which they cower down to and must obey.
Like a ratchet, one click at a time, the "marching empire." Endless wars, constant disagreements, using imperialism to stay on top. Using "levers" of lies and distrust, via power players. Creating favorites: favoring the proxies who bow down and sacrifice themselves for the mastah. Pointing fingers, everywhere else, using the POWER of the mainstream media.
Divide-and-rule/conquer.
The oldest trick in the book...
Who has the POWER? Who has always had the GEOPOSITIONAL advantage of power to rule? The GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all other "buck catchers" (tools and other instruments of POWER in the Roman era style), but could not be reached themselves at any point in a historical timeline due to a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic- or political advantage?
“Divide-and-rule/conquer” as a standard strategy of power and thus the cause of nearly all conflicts in the world connects the dots on the timeline of history. Being far from the events resulting from their own meddling and political activities and being able to reach all other regions, but could not be reached themselves.
All they want is peace, they say. Who gathers the pieces of the great wealth and systemic gains when everyone else has failed to unite?
Different terms. Different eras. Same games...
The opposition that wants unity and equillibrium in a region is the "bad guy."
We, who seek true peace and harmony, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized.
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D chess." Everything you know is a variation of reality. They are playing 5D chess with the minds of 2D checkers players, within the compartmentalized brains of people who think they are smart.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@karunyaasribashyam1465 Yes, there is only "history".
As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives".
One perspective should not rank higher than another.
Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable".
The reality?
As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Re. the question why all the observed reality is allowed to happen, is because it is based on human nature, and the nature of our prefered systems of capitalism/democracy.
All states, also the western style "liberal democracies" and "good states" have set up deep-impacting non-elected agencies, which are outside of the control of any voters, and therefore the collective wisdom and moral values of humanity. The resulting system is that of pyramidically shaped systems of gain, contained within other pyramidical systems of gain, in which ultimate gain and power is funneled to the very top. These pyramidically shaped (structured) systems of gain called "capitalism" and "politics" have the stated goal of pushing and removing opposition, largely and correctly known as being a "dirty game" (euphemism) and are designed by nature to attract fellow human beings with psychopathic tendencies (***see below footnotes).
A large portion of our fellow human beings perceive these as valid traits to achieve the own political and personal priorities. "Might is right", and "end justifies the means" are still axioms of so-called superiority. There is also no reason to believe that any other system which promises power, will not attract similar numbers of bullies and psychopaths.
Reality: "Liberal democracies" and "capitalist gain models" attract psychos like moths to the flame, and most human beings wouldn't be able to spot a "psycho" even if their lives depended on it.
Most human beings living in symbiosis of systems either don't have the skill to recognize bad actors, nor the inclination to remove them since it is tangentially beneficial to own favored systems, or have become directly entrapped by the "gain models" (pyramids) lead by such bad actors. An example of this would be the case of Oliver North, whose psychopathic dealings were rewarded by "the system" with a highly paid management position (NRA). It doesn't seem to bother sufficient decent people enough to make such "management styles" impossible (effect a "stopper" against such models de jure or de facto). Indeed, based on observation, and looking back in history it can therefore be concluded that such behaviour is only given a "slap on the wrist", and therefore continues in "good empires". Studies have shown that models based on "intent of gain", like capitalism, have rates of people with psychopathic tendencies as high as 20%. Compare that reality to the average for a normal society, or usual non-gain models of cooperation, which is around a "1% psycho saturation rate". There is no reason to believe other models of "intent of gain" (like politics) do not have similar high rates of psychos.
All empires as collectives of individuals have by nature, psychopathic and bullying tendencies. Note that the "Hollywood image" of the "psycho" and "the bully" is faaaaar removed from reality. The unfortunate reality is that most psychopaths/bullies remain undetected, and undetectable, because they manipulate entire groups of "non-psychos/non-bullies" into following them as beneficiaries, who then start entire campaigns of coverups and deception themselves.
These psychopathic traits are generally considered to be common traits, and are defined: stated where these individual traits overlap with governments:
- have split personalities (the political reality of "doves" and "hawks" coexisting in one "brain")
- they are narcissistic (constantly pointing the finger "outwards" in attempts at deflecting from own actions and goals)
- they have "brains" (governments) which control, or misconstruct data
- scheme for own gain (policies, doctrines, and the likes of that)
- use manipulative strategies as tools in order to mislead billions of people
These bad actors and deceivers are allowed "to play", to lie and deceive, telling their inhabitants things like "all we want is peace", whereas in reality there are elements pushing for eternal war which benefits the systems they represent.
Further traits, which can be scaled up or down to all levels of human cooperation, but not limited to (from wiki): "Meanness. Lacking empathy and close attachments (edit: the urge to avoid unity with others), disdain of close attachments (edit: steer away from mutually beneficial treaties), use of cruelty to gain empowerment (edit: torture, concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, etc. and then making excuses for the perpetrators), exploitative tendencies (edit: i.e. ethnic cleansing, etc.), defiance of authority (like disdain for higher bodies of common humanity, like UN rulings), and destructive excitement seeking (edit: saying things like "dodging bullets is exciting", whilst on expeditions intending to steal self-governance from others)." (end of quote)
Therefore, logically, all one needs to do is find out what these manipulators (as a collective hive mind operating in pyramically shaped systems of gain) are trying to manipulate the majorities into cheering for.
Footnotes/key words for further research:
* 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
* Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
* The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JoaoSoares-rs6ec Have you heard about the "Chinese Century of Humiliation"? (1837 - 1948)
If one understands what happened to China during their "Century of Humiliation," means that one then already has the template to understand what is happening today. One can use the historical "template" and apply it in the same manner.
What happened to China during that era, is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today. Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the little minions benefiting from the outside POWER of imperialism to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) crises into "eternal problems," sit by and do nothing as problems foment into violence, revolutions, and wars, or carry out other forms of privatized interference (corporatism) under government protection, or without. Whatever works, details really REALLY DON'T MATTER. Once "fomented troubles" rise out of hand, claim to "just want peace." Then use the little minions as favourites (favouritism = a technique within the "divide and rule" strategy of power) to destabilize an entire region, steer them against other weaker entities, and/or employ them as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regions as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc.
Whatever works for the desired region to be divided/conquered or where CONTROL and domination is required for the economic systems of gain.
There is no way that current day Chinese leaders will not have learnt their very own historical lesson, and allow their very own history to repeat/rhyme, and allow such outside meddling in the own systems to gain traction, AGAIN for a second time.
Every nation or state has its own "Never again!"
European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonial ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon. These citizens, usually around 50% of entire populations, suffer directly ("heating or eating"), or indirectly (soaring inflation), these are all "effects," not to be confused with "causes" (see concept of retro causality, one of the most easily misused ways to skew a timeline of events). Some eventually even end up in the muddy trenches.
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their (temporary) GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
With re. to how tools are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also, that a "plan" and the strategy to effect the plan, are two different things.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as the USA implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combated by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today. MORE than sufficient evidence for this, in the below comments section. Outsiders intent on playing the game, use the revolutionary spirit, in order to hop onto useful dissent, strengthen it, and insert levers which they can pry open to gain own advantages. Beijing is certainly 100% aware of this, so everything you are witnessing today is a political EFFECT, not a political "cause" as some leaders wish to mislead us towards.
1
-
@JoaoSoares-rs6ec You mean you are a "history buff" and you've never heard of divide-and-rule?
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Too stupid to avoid disunity.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS.
Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite?
Today we see millions of followers of Islam, praying in their mosques in West Asia, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS, and 125 years ago we saw millions of followers of Christ, praying in their churches, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS. Oh, wait...we didn't see it...
We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", and "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin" on reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart".
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
1
-
THE GEOPOSITIONAL ADVANTAGE OF POWER vs. MACHIAVELLI
The GEOPOSITIONAL advantage.
Explaining the concept of "an advantage" is simple.
Only those who deny reality will never understand, or pretend not to understand, making them liars (by omitting).
The "mommy's basement hero" or similar "keyboard warrior" is the archetype of an individual arguing from a GEOPOSIONAL advantage. The own "standpoint" can be richly, proudly, hectoringly, carnivorously (loosely quoting Jefferson) defended from a unique position of being unaffected by the potential EFFECTS of the own standpoint being vociferously voiced and proclaimed. In other words, as many proverbial expressions state the advocate will never face, or expect never to face, any consequences of the own vociferously claimed "truth". In fact, the repeatedly proclaimed "truths" only means arguing others into a standoff or conflict. The intention of the latter is to then quickly run off into the own safety zone, and from there (eating popcorn) "watch others fight".
The worst type of leadership one can imagine: The coward. The liar. The weak mind.
A simple question exposes them: Why aren't you there, in the "trenches," defending your OWN standpoint?
Then listen/read carefully. This species is evolutionary wired not only to become susceptible to manipulation, deception, lies and half-truths, but also to become the creators of manipulation, deception, lies and half-truths.
The worst type of leadership one can imagine: The coward. The liar. The weak mind.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background.
Step 1: Deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is "down" and "out", start again with point 1)
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
MACHIAVELLIAN PRINCIPLE OF FAIRNESS
Of course, this argument cannot be turned around, since the principled standpoint, as opposed to the unprincipled standpoint of the "basement hero", is NOT to get into such positions in the first place. The standoffs as advocated BY these "basement heroes", are the escalation patterns which are recurrent throughout history. One sure-fire way to avoid conflict, is one of the oldest wisdoms/strategies of all: to do onto others, as one wishes to be done onto (not ONLY a moral standpoint, but ALSO a strategy of power to avoid escalation).
Of course, per Machiavelli, it is not only a wisdom, but also a strategy of power. Often quoted by imperialists/militarists with agendas as being "Machiavellian" is that "It is better to be feared than loved" which is however a distortion version of the Machiavellian strategy.
The same way they lie and distort everything, in order to bend it to their own world views.
Unfortunately, even Machiavelli's writing have become distorted into meaning "It's cool to be an a-hole and brag about it."
What Machiavelli actually advised in Chapter XVII was that it is best to be both loved and feared (compromise and deterrence, by being fair, see FOOTNOTE). Only when that ideal of "to be loved" is not possible, then to make others "fear" is the way forward. As always, the distorters, the deceivers, the liars (by omitting half the strategy) will always pretend to expose "truths," whereas what they are doing is actually distorting it.
That is why the world needs a global, multi-tiered, legally-based balance of power.
FOOTNOTE
Per Machiavelli: Strategy of "fairness".
Do you wish to be encircled, and be encroached upon, and be controlled from outside? Then don't do it to others. Because "fair" is (per Machiavelli) ALSO a strategy of power, and such principles as "putting yourself in the shoes" or "walking a mile in their shoes" are ways to determine a fair principle. The unprincipled have no principles, therefore avoid wasting time on them. Balance them out...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The storyline of oppressors "switching sides" to become the oppressors always rhyme.
White settler colonists who went to North America were overwhelmingly from Europe.
They were:
- religiously persecuted
- poor and oppressed
- escaping war
- religious ingroups
- received imperialist support from centers of power once inside and settled down on the "promised land"
- after independence was declared one-sidedly without consultation with the original inhabitants everything done became "legal 'cos a law says so"
- cherished the narrative of "there was a war going on, ya know", so we "did nothing wrong"
Once arrived, some (not all) took the holy book in one hand, the gun in the other, and set out to first squeeze out, and later encircle the indigenous populations towards ever-smaller reservations, after ethnically cleansing them in Trails of Tears. Oh, how history rhymed in the Levant 100 and 200 years later (1920s thru until today). Even the "stories" these white supremacists tell themselves in order to cover up for their actions sound exactly the same as 100 and 200 years ago, rhyming with the actions 100 and 200 years before in North America, Southern Africa, Australia, etc...
Apologists for wrongful imperialist behaviour then try the one-liners of "Why did all these people coming to North America loooove 'merica so much?"
Me: ROTFL, as if it isn't obvious why individuals who were "poor and huddled" and who received great advantages at the expense of others, wouldn't FIRST consider their own gains as "winning". Seriously, such rhetorical geniuses who apparently haven't read a single history book, are not worth wasting a single minute of "debating" on...
Today, with few exceptions, even the slogans their white supremacist leaders chant rhyme in nature. The storyline which rhymes, is that the indigenous populations at a certain status quo when "we" (ingroup) arrived on their shores, were just inferior "placeholders" and therefor mere "dogs in the manger" (quoting Churchill about Native Americans and Arabs) until the true chosen people, the "superior whites" arrived to shoo them away with words, money, guns, and the POWER of OUTSIDE imperialist means and ends.
Today the propagandists want YOU to "do and follow" and not to "think and oppose" imperialism.
The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same means, as they did 100 and 200 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care.
It is what they spend billions on every year so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching...
--------------------------------------------
The settler colonists came in droves and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE...
A little piece of Palestine,
A little piece of land
A little piece of Jordan
and Jerusalem, gun in hand...
A little slice of Samara!
And all that that entails
Und then a piece of Lebanon
my land, so nothing fails!
A little nip of those fields!
A little spot of offshore gas!
A little hunk of all the water!
Oh, what a lovely "alas"!
Then create funny songs about those who failed.
Why?
Because all they honor is "successful" (term is debatable) settler colonial projects of "lebenstraum", not the failures. The failures are ridiculed, and the "successes" be sung..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hamas, just like every single terrorist organisation ever, at any point in history ever, in any geographical location ever, by any religion ever, have always been an effect of oppression.
The USA/collective West is classifying the terrorists they have created themselves with own PREVIOUS political actions, as terrorists...
Terrorism/Freedom fighting (POV) is always an "effect" not a "cause."
If you live in the west, then you (personally), or your parents, grandparents or previous generations have never ever ever fought anybody your own leaders have not personally set you up against.
Name the war, incl. this current "War on Terror", and follow back through the previous actions, and one can inform oneself how our own governments have created it (aka "lay the foundation").
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are you a citizen of the world, and wish to contribute a small share to end the grip the global elites have on the narrative of history?
Are you American, or European? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from the multitude of military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any platform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Why do we know this? Because good people have been voting, and posting, and debating, and using their freedom of speech, and protesting for hundreds of years, but the grip the elites have on the plebs has NEVER changed.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unraveling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a long term lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influential GLOBAL ELITES only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I would have reminded French leaders of the role their own leaders played in escalating the July Crisis.
[From wiki]
"In 1913, it had been announced that Poincaré would visit St. Petersburg in July 1914 to meet Tsar Nicholas II. Accompanied by Premier René Viviani, Poincaré went to Russia for the second time (but for the first time as president) to reinforce the Franco-Russian Alliance. On 15 July, the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister, Count Leopold von Berchtold, informed foreign countries through a back-channel of Austria-Hungary's intention to present an ultimatum to Serbia.[24] When Poincaré arrived in St. Petersburg on 20 July, the Russians told him by 21 July of the Austrian ultimatum and German support for Austria.[24] Although Prime Minister Viviani was supposed to be in charge of French foreign policy, Poincaré promised the Tsar unconditional French military backing for Russia against Austria-Hungary and Germany.[25]"
Viola....a French "blank cheque"?
[Continued]
"In his discussions with Nicholas II, Poincaré talked openly of winning an eventual war, not avoiding one.[21]"
Me: So much for the "we just want peace"- version of events.
[Continued]
"Later, he attempted to hide his role in the outbreak of military conflict and denied having promised Russia anything.[21]"
Bearing false witness?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Getting into a crisis or war is very simple.
In liberal democracies, it works quite simply.
Take up a position one would never concede to as "acceptable" for oneself if placed in such a position. Then refuse a decent compromise.
Repell even moderate requests from "the other side".
If a crisis ensues or a war breaks out?
Wash hands in innocence.
Point the finger somewhere else.
Decry everybody on the own side who opposes the "narrative", usually by way of unprovable but populist accusations.
How to get a crisis to escalate into war?
Also easy.
Appeal to people's emotions.
From Goodreads quotes: “Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” ― Hermann Goering
Of course he knew how Berlin had fabricated consent for the invasion of Poland. The slogan chanters would point fingers and chant on command: "Poland attacked first", and "We are just going to save poor oppressed Germans" (as "shown on newsreels"), or "GB and France prodded Poland on to attack us" (sic.).
Goering didn't get much right in his political life, but even a broken clock is right twice a day: In this case, his statement is spot on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's divide-and-rule.
At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule.
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others...
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favouritism.
"Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Africa, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the behavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD"
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
If somebody came from outside to instate themselves on the lands you were born on, would you simply roll over and surrender?
Moshe Sharett, the first Israeli foreign minister, wrote in 1914:
"We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we ceases to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise. (Righteous Victims, p. 91)
In April 28, 1930 Menachem Ussishkin stated in an address to journalists in Jerusalem:
"We must continually raise the demand that our land be returned to our possession .... If there are other inhabitants there, they must be transferred to some other place. We must take over the land. We have a great and NOBLER ideal than preserving several hundred thousands of [Palestinian] Arabs fellahin [peasants]." (Righteous Victims, p. 141)
1
-
1
-
Brits paid the price later on.
Re. "Who benefited most from Mers, and who lost most".
The general consensus is that The British Empire was the "winner", and that "France was the loser".
Wrong.
Reality? For the second time in 20 years, "the lights would go out", and others would benefit. Because, the type of rule or economy plays little role in the outcome of whether one "rules the world" or not.
Geography plays a far bigger role.
So at the turn of century London "ruled the world" because geography isolated them from the continent and their island status gave them the upper hand at a time when war was still the common way to determine "top dog" or not....
When development of weapons produced ever further reaching weapons of war, GB's island status did not offer the same measure of protection anymore...so they went down.
The weapons of 1900 couldn't harm the British Empire, but the weapons of 1945 could....
In that era around WW2, it was the USA which was (as the sole power) isolated from this "great game", and benefited as the result of its geographical isolation, and because there was that "one ring which ruled them all"...lol, but in a good way of course.
And it wasn't only the forces of evil who wanted to "rule the world", but also people who thought they had a God-given right to do so...
[Google: The American_Century]
...and who thought they were better than everybody else...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "paygrade brigade" rules with the lightest hand.
The statement to "govern with the lightest possible hand" (H.W. Crocker) as "indirect rule", is divide and rule/conquer.
"Lightest possible governing" when it is profitable (one tier), and "benign neglect" if it is potentially favorable (another tier).
The intention of "divide and rule" is not to facilitate unrests or wars, but in order to skim off the highest possible yield, with the lowest possible own imput. Those who "rule" with "light hands" amplify differences, or innocently state there is nothing they can do to try and even out diffences, thereby setting up those in the "cabooses" of the trains against each other, or employ such lower paygrades as "stokers" for the locomotives...
The actions are revealed by the events, not words.
"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." - Warren Buffett
Buffett and his class "divide" the people into "paygrade classes" (trust funds) and "the rest"...
He is not only not using "words", he is also not explaining concepts by ignoring the elephant in the room.
They don't state HOW they implement it.
Of course, it isn't his fault, he is just "surfing".
The creation of pyramical structures, within other pyramidical structures, all striving to go up up up up in a giant pyramical structure with an "eye" at the very top to ensure it stays pyramical in shape for all time, as the little pyramids below elbow, push and spit (so-called "meritocracy").
For an exchange between the "paygrade brigade" pushing for war, and a "voice of reason" (Scott Ritter) in the "caboose", search for "Bid. en Mocks Mar. ine Who Exp. osed Government Mis. take" on You Tube.
Then look at the eyes as the tutoring takes place, and turn the sound off, and see how a nation drifts to a war which would kill and maim millions, displace millions more, and funnel trillions into the coffers of those exact same "paygrade brigades".
It is obviously an uneven playing field: the checks and balances, have turned into "cheques and balance sheets" a long time ago.
Or simply search for George "money beats peace...errr...err...sometimes" Bush...
Note how such elites will gladly tell us what is happening, from a "favorite perspective" (also "favoratism"), but that they never tell us HOW they do it.
Some in this "paygrade brigade" say they want peace, while some in this "paygrade brigade" will push for war at the same time, and those who push for war, will point at those who wish for peaceful solutions, to tell you what great people they are...
Notice always that it doesn't really matter what any advocate says, because everything that is said will set people up against each other, in the biggest pyramid of them all: the divide and rule/conquer world, where the rules they preach don't count...
Their only concern is how to "rule" your thoughts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Using Japan at the turn of the previous century as an example we can explain how powers with a superior geographical position, and in a better financial position, and with a more advanced industrial/technological stand, can "build up" proxies and then encourange them to do the own bidding.
Ukraine, take note.
London intended to use Japan as a "counterweight" to balance out rising Russian power as had become evident in the Great Game (19th Century rivalry over Asia).
After consolodating their hold over North and South America at the turn of the previous century ("around 1900"), Washington DC intended to expand into the Asia/Pacific region.
“Considering the basic interests of the U.S. at this stage of its development, there can scarcely be any doubt about the enormous importance of the Pacific (region)... If the contention that the center of world trade is slowly but surely shifting from the Atlantic to the Pacific is correct, (note at the time: China was still one of the world's leading economic powers in terms of GDP, independent of the fact that a succession of weak and corrupted Chinese governments offered the opportunity of European divide and conquer"-games with the Chinese people) then the notion that the commercial interests of the U.S. in the Far East have been growing in recent years with extraordinary speed, especially since the Panama Canal opened, is no less correct. In 1913, i.e. before the world war began, all the Asian trade of the U.S. did not exceed 125 million doll., whereas in 1920 it already surpassed 500 mil., and in 1928 it reached the enormous figure of 2 billion, in other words, in 15 years it increased by a factor of 15. .... As is well known, during the period preceding the Russo-Japanese War (of 1904/05), the States took a position that definitely favored Japan moving against Russia, and during that war America’s banking circles (Jacob Schiff, Kuhn and Loeb,and others) generously funded Japan. ... Great Powers were also working for the States to cooperate on Japan’s side. Under the influence of these factors, by the time the Russo-Japanese War began Britain found itself an ally of Japan and the U.S. its banker. The results of the war of 1904-05, however, surpassed all expectations of those who had prodded Japan into what seemed to be a risky adventure for it: the successes of the Land of the Rising Sun and its emergent arrogance forced Japan’s friends and accomplices to stop and think; it was becoming clear that these successes p. 217 p. 218 p. 219 p. 220 were threatening their own interests in the Far East, and therefore attempts began to hold back the further spread of Japan’s influence on the mainland. However, this already proved to be difficult…”
Morandum dated 11.5.1932. The United States: the Japanese-Chinese conflict and the question of a Soviet-Japanese clash.
This was an assessment by Soviet strategists while analysising US's turn of the century goals and aims (around 1900), largely corroborated by a multitude of modern post-WW2 works, and backed up by evidence.
It seems as if the own Washington DC and British Empire "chosen tool to oppose Russian expansion" called Japan, was getting too greedy and had to be stopped...
Note: While all of the above was taking place, the British Empire graciously built up Japanese military power both in terms of training and technology transfers, knowing full-well that Japan was already a contender for Chinese territory and markets (Formosa/1895).
An age old strategy, old as the mountains...
Use a "tool".
Build up "a proxy".
Watch on as others fight and/or weaken your rival/enemy, and make a killing on the sales of weapons and equipment.
From wiki/36 Strategems: "Kill with a borrowed knife (借刀殺人, Jiè dāo shā rén). Attack using the strength of another when in a situation where using one's own strength is not favourable. For example, trick an ally into attacking them or use the enemy's own strength against them. The idea is to cause damage to the enemy via a third party."
This can be a stand-alone strategy, or used in combination with other strategies...
Regarding strategies, the sky is the limit.
For example:
"Watch the fires burning across the river (隔岸觀火, Gé àn guān huǒ). Delay entering the field of battle until all other parties become exhausted by fighting amongst each other. Go in at full strength and finish them off." (same wiki site)
The modern insider joke of "sitting on the fence while eating popcorn and chips as others fight" in order to gain some advantage, is of course also an old trick.
Of course, Japan and Russia fighting "to mutual exhaustion" and thereby removing two contestants for profitable Chinese markets at the same time, and ending up feeling "totally down and demoralized" after a brutal war, didn't quite work out according to the strategy.
Not for the first time in history, the "mutual exhaustion"-part didn't play out, and Japan came out of the war stronger than most international analysts had expected.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I just came here from a comments section from a video praising "hero Trump" for his ...ahem... "efforts to stop the war", with hundreds and hundreds of fools arguing about the effects, and their priorities, and fingers pointing here and there.... but maybe 1 or 2 mentioning the causes of this war which started 30 years ago.
Trump of course, during his first term (2017-2021), did not stop the "marching empire" [systemic expansion], so he was just another POTUS, an imperialist, just like all the others before...
-----------------------
Why is anybody surprised? The USA instigates wars or does not avoid them (even if possible), or lays the foundations for crises it aims to profit from using the divide-and-rule technique in IR. It is also a divide-and-rule Mecca for the ultra-rich who practice it on the domestic tier also.
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided people are easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy. Lies (incl. "lying by omission") is an integral part of the strategy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Will CVL Yes. Correct.
There is however, a truth which is "empirical", based on empirical evidence...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
As for myself, I assess information from a myriad of sources before reaching a conclusion, in a similar scholarly way as international organisations such as the UN.
Personal "truth" is often biased. Bias skews the conclusion. For example, a scientist who wishes to prove a certain theory, ignoring evidence which counters the theory. Or, historians who wish to achieve a certain predetermined outcome, will simply ignore any uncomfortable facts which counter the conclusion...
The reason I stated that the other commentor is "a fool", is because I've discussed with him on other videos, and under other comments. He "filters" all empirical evidence according to his ideological stance (aka "religion").
What makes his kind dangerous, is that they derive current political privileges from an unprovable ideological stance (for example the statement "God gave us this land", is not an empirical truth. There is neither evidence for "God", nor can the supposed statement be proven (for example, a date or document supplied as evidence).
1
-
Will CVL Well. Here comes the fun part.
There are no "bad guys" accept for the radical fringes of BOTH societies. The overwhelming majority of the people are prisoners of the situation they were born into, simply want peace, and are willing to make compromises....but they often can't due to the radical fringes in their own society.
My advice when reading or watching news?
Where there are interests (political, economic, vested, national, etc.) simply doubt EVERYTHING. Usually, the guy shouting the loudest is one doing it himself.
Then. Read, read, read...from as many sources and as many different analyses as possible.
I'm no expert either.
I've travelled to Israel many times, and have family there. They are mostly liberal in their outlook, and willing to compromise. Unfortunately they can't, because the peace process is often torpedoed by the Israeli far-right wing. They have often described themselves as "prisoners", as much as those on the other side.
A solution?
There is none.
The train is heading for the concrete wall and whoever is left will have to pick up the pieces afterwards.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I heard evil government's going to send in the military...
Good.
Maybe they should start beating and torturing random innocent Americans suspected of being naughty, as they have been doing in other places in the world for years, and years...
Good.
Popcorn and chips for the rest of the world.
Chickens coming home to roost....
"Residents of Fallujah called them "the Murderous Maniacs" because of how they treated Iraqis in detention. They were soldiers of the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division...
One officer and two non-commissioned officers (NCOs) of the 82nd Airborne who witnessed abuse, speaking on condition of anonymity, described in multiple interviews with Human Rights Watch howtheir battalion in 2003-2004 routinely used physical and mental torture as a means of intelligence gathering....
According to their accounts, the torture and other mistreatment of Iraqis....
Military Intelligence personnel, they said, directed and encouraged army personnel to subject prisoners to forced, repetitive exercise, sometimes to the point of unconsciousness...
At least one interrogator beat detainees in front of other soldiers.
Soldiers also incorporated daily beatings of detainees in preparation for interrogations."
[hrw.org]
But, of course, only "bad people" will get targeted.
If history teaches us one thing, it is "beware of what you wish for..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Destroying "city centers" does not significantly impact a war effort.
As a general truth for any country, in war or in peace, "production" as a factor is mainly limited by 3 factors:
1) availability of raw materials
2) availability of labour
3) finance (including the finance of the production sites, like factories and yards)
During times of war, number 3 can be largely ignored, because the situation of a war means that governments can introduce extraordinary measures. Or, to put it another way: the fact that no country at war has ever lost a war because they went bankrupt.
That leaves 1) and 2).
Re. Germany (and their Axis partners) the sphere of interest they had gobbled up in the rapid victories in 1939-41 (basically the continent of Europe) lacked vital key resources, meaning that "production" was automatically limited by a lack of raw materials, especially oil.
Conclusion: The strategic bombing effort as means to inhibit Germany's production was justified, as long as a few key industries/sectors were hit, and these "factories and yards" were taken out.
Trying to "Area Bomb" Germany into submission was folly from the outset, and a waste of British resources.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
British leaders ended the war under the rather childish delusion that their "best fwiends" were going to let them become a nuclear power in 1945.
The question then, why it took GB 7 years after WW2, to carry out their 1st nuclear test, even though the technology had already been developed by international scientist (also British) before 1945.
Because its the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and "cute Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world really works...
Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world "you shall not have nuclear weapons!"
[Google how that unfolded with: "history/british-nuclear-program]
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
1945 Washington DC: "If you want nukes, develop them yourself. In the meantime, I'll dismantle your empire. What are you going to do about it?"
That's how leverage works.
Rule Britannia, replaced by the American Century.
Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana.
Why didn't Washington DC/The American Century give their "special friends" the secret of nuclear bombs in 1945?
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS.
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Asking the wrong questions on a limited scope and timeline will not reveal the divide-and-rule technique.
The empire set off on the "G-G Line" from Germany to Greece, during the First Cold War after declaring war ("cold" war/1947).
It advanced to the "B-B Line" from the Baltics to the Black Sea (see footnote) after the "peace" was declared to the plebs after the 1990s, and a bright new future pwomised to all the children of history, believers...
How long do you think it will take for the empire, wriggling and writhing about ("divide-and-rule"), hopping over here and there ("pivoting") before they reach the "A-A Line"?
The goals of the "dividers" who wield the power, is simply that their politics is the continuation of war by other means...
‐-----------
The "B-B Line".
When people start thinking in terms of dichotomies like winning/losing, left/right wing, us/them, right/wrong, unity/division, they are already all "losers."
Think in terms of a desirable outcome. If not, lose.
Outsiders fabricate the "crescent of crises" around your heartland.
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
If outsiders come from outside and start drawing lines on the map, through your homelands without asking the people who live there.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. They allow outsiders to play the cards FOR them.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS. Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Rome. London. Washington DC.
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It was never special.
It all started off soooo gweat...
That "Hollywood movie Band of Brothers"-stuff.
Everyone speaking English.
The good guys...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE 2:
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets...
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
After WW2, the "best friends" drove the weakened British Empire into the ground.
PART II
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
-----------------------------------
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
§§§footnote
If you wish to know more about exactly how the British Empire was "being dismantled," see PART I.
1
-
"You will own nothing and be happy."
First, they came for the mom and pop stores, but we had Amazon & cie., and did not care.
Then, they came for the farmers, but we did not care for we had Walmart shelves packed to the brim...
Finally, the corporations came for your house, and there was nobody left to speak for you.
How convenient if family-led farms all over Europe go bankrupt.
The corporations can swarm in, get the land cheaply, and feast on the dividends of renting the land back to the original owners.
In the end, you will own nothing, but you won't be happy.
1
-
At Versailles, the policies of "balancing powers" were made in the back rooms...
Two great powers were not invited (Germany and SU).
Two were dissed (Italy and Japan).
The only time bomb was the altered reality of a changing balance of power.
Versailles only controlled one side of that scale...
That Germany was "allowed" to rearm during the 1930's (or "closing an eye to Hitler re-arming") was an effect of a policy dictated to the continent by London, and put into effect, yet again, at Versailles: Balance of Power.
So the later Germany/Hitler re-arming and standing up to rising communism suited the lords in London just fine...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_five-year_plan
[Note, the term "power" encompasses a wide range of qualities from population growth, level of education (including scientists, mechanics, and engineers), scientific advances, level of industrialisation, urbanisation/i.e. advanced society, infrastructure projects, increased GDP, and yes...soldiers, tanks, guns, airplanes...]
As the SU grew, and grew, AND GREW, so did Germany.
Perfectly fine, if you ask the lords...
It was "allowed" to "balance out" communism.
What could possibly go wrong?
Why complain about it in hindsight?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is actually quite simple.
The main reasons were 1) geography and 2) industrial capacity (incl. the resources securely available in an own sphere of influence).
Since 2) wasn't unlimited, for any country/state, therefore obviously the nation's strategists had to place priorities. Still true today.
So, if one is a "continental" power, like Russia, or France, or Germany (with neighboring rivals/enemies), the absolute priority is the direct control of the border regions, in other words "short range" priorities.
Notice how 2) also impacted all 3 main continental powers equally: neither France, Russia, or Germany had the resources to invest in strategic bombers, after taking care of the direct threats to their borders (in all three, the army came absolutely first in resources).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
YES
Its "divide and rule."
"Divide and rule, weaken and conquer, love and enslave, these are three tenets of politics" ― Bangambiki Habyarimana
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is. Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
Outsiders come and pick favorites, and feed them with bribes and corruption.
The outsiders when make your leaders LOVE the money, and enslave its peoples...
All that is needed is a position of superior international power.
BEWARE AFRICA
Outsiders will return, same as 100 and 200 years ago, to divide your peoples, and rule over the dissent and chaos.
Outsiders WILL come again, to entice your leaders with riches, make promises of glorious futures, or try to find some "cause" to finance and leverage for own gains (mostly "influence/power" or "financial"). Often, all in parallel.
UNITE
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@terrysmith9362 To set up the self-reinforcing process of "priming" and "conditioning" of "the masses" which needed to turned against each other, the means of literature was created. As more people became literate, and as print became cheaper and cheaper (reaching larger and larger parts of the population as time passed), and the evolving liberty meant that a ruler could not simply go into a village and say "you, you, you, grab your pitchfork, there is a war going on" as time progressed (say, the 19th century),
Today this process of "priming/conditioning" of the (mostly) young and inexperienced, is well-known when it became public how the Pentagon funds Hollywood movies which depict "certain people" as enemies.
Of course, had Rambo and movies existed in the late 19th Century, he would've "fought Injuns", but it just so happens that he "fought commies" (Cold War) together with "our best fwiends the Muslims". Also movies with lotsa "Mexican looking types" (War on Drugs)...
No coincidence, of course.
Nothing new of course either, nor is it "conspiracy theory"-nonsense, since the process is self-reinforcing. If it sells (popularism), it will get copied. It is not necessarilly "steered" by dark-hooded figures in "back rooms"...
In GB this process of "priming" and "conditioning" in the form of "Invasion scare literature" (a term which can be googled for more info) against the Germans started almost the same time as they united (1871) and took over the role of "most likely to achieve continental hegemony" from France. Before that, "the Germans" were "best fwiends" of course.
Context?
See below....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The first country to find out how dangerous it was to become America's "friends", was Great Britain.
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003
Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice.
Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power.
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you live in a frontier fort composed of civilians, intended to surround a concentration camp, then what did these settler colonists expect? Neighbors who bring them candy and flowers?
Hamas was created by Israel with a divide and rule intention, to undermine the authority of the PLO. Search that and one will find hundreds of articles, incl. from Israeli sources, which will confirm this intentional Israeli strategy of deceit and division.
Gaza is the world's biggest concentration camp, ringed in by a cicle of Kibbutzim, inhabited by armed settler colonists. If you want to know what's going on, ask a Jwe. They will honestly tell you straight in your face, and dare you to resist: "We are a generation that settles the land, and without the steel helmet and the cannon's fire we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home.” Moshe Dayan
The intention is ethnic cleansing, and a pretext is needed to vacate the land under the terror of cannon fire, in order to create the next concentration camp, ringed in by the next ring of Kibbutzim, inhabited by the next selection of future "victims of terrorism"...
What you are witnissing today, is the own biblical "logic" of "reap as you sow". Israeli strategists, safely within the reach of the safety of their BUNKERS, intended to "sow division" between the peoples of Palestine, and now individual Israelis and foreigners are "reaping" the effects of previous choices. Not a nice personal tale, agreed, so sorry about the personal misfortune of living in a frontier fort, and choosing to become a tool of encirclement.
But the own personal decisions to live a life as soldiers of fortune, using the own families as a human shields, whilst surrounding an open-air concentration camp as a tool of strategic encirclement, sometimes have unhappy consequences...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has achieved everything it has set out to do already. Cause division in Europe. Everybody is discussing the effects of US/NATO/EU systemic expansion, rather than pointing at the causes of the conflict...
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Apparently the London lords weren't smart enough to follow a policy they themselves had devised and imposed on Europe, to protect their "Empire".
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In February 1942, the decision was taken to make the German people (not the Nazi Government or military) "the enemy".
By destoying Central Europe, they destroyed their own "scale" which they intended to "hop onto" in either war or peace, this side now, the other side another time...
After the war there was nothing left to play "balancing games" with anymore.
They had destroyed "the scale" which protected their own Empire.
After the war, this weakness was then soon exploited by their "WW2 best fwiends", who would armwrestle the British Empire into the ground with a series of well-aimed but devestating own political/economic policies.
The British Empire reminds me of that cartoon of the dumb lumberjack sawing off the branch he is sitting on.
And today?
Still the kids are shouting: Here, a bigger saw..."
1
-
@nickmail7604 The distorters of history lie about everything. Even the Bible they claim to love so much....
When one does wrong, it doesn't matter how one justifies these wrongs.
Or, the true meaning of the Biblical "reap the whirlwind".
In the Bible (Hosea), Israel allied with the devil (Assyria), rather than trust in God, and subsequently lost their worldly "empire" (Hosea).
The biblical wisdom of not allying with evil (Stalin/communism) has been distorted over time, to become a justification for own actions ("reap the whirlwind" = punishment).
A fallacy.
It is only half the story, or "lying by omission".
Because "evil" has even less scrupples than oneself, and therefore allying with evil will mean that one will get screwed over by the devil one has allied with.
Read Hosea.
Even if one is an atheist, these wisdoms are based on thousands of years of human observations.
By own admission, GB allied with the devil (Stalin), and then set off to destroy the German people, rather than letting the two devils (Hitler and Stalin) "slug it out" to mutual destruction on the Eastern Front, while concentrating on the own priorities (Western Desert, Battle of the Atlantic, etc.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikem1956 Here is the full context.
Note that PragerU "spins" the story, in order to generate outrage.
" Chow abstained and issued a five-paragraph statement explaining her abstention.
“As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true,” Chow wrote. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman.”
“Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community.”
“She could have merely abstained,” said QARC president Regan Putnam. “But she took it upon herself to go into this long dialogue, talking about marriage between a man and a woman, and shrouding hate in ‘love.’ Nobody asked her to explain her vote. Nobody who voted ‘yes’ had to explain their vote.”
End of quote
What is it about Christians, that they constantly have to judge others, and filter things according to the own belief system?
Why didn't she simply abstain?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikem1956 Nobody is upset with her, because of her personal belief system.
Maybe you understand it wrong, because you have not been given all the facts to draw a conclusion?
Here are some facts you might not have considered.
She voted on a topic which affect the unalienable right to life, liberty, and happiness of others
She clearly stated that her personal opinion affected her choice (at this point, I suggest googling her full statement).
As a representative, she should keep her personal opinions to herself (then nobody would care).
There is a principle called "separation of church and state" (which she should look into in case she wishes to pursue a career in politics).
So, again :-)
It wasn't the fact that she abstained (that is her right to do so), but her rubbing it into people's faces that her personal belief in an "invisible guy in the sky" ( her personal belief system) lured her onto this path.
Here is the counterfactual argument:
Let's turn this around.
Let's take the hypothetically possible situation of a vote about "abortion", and an LGBTQ member abstains, then giving a long-winded sermon about how his/her belief in a certain "god" made him/her do it.
Let's say this sermon includes references to a personal opinion, that all Christians do not live a "true life", because they do not follow the LGBTQ rules.
Would you agree to such statements on personal belief systems ?
Would you call that person out?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Europeans are "shocked" how little the USA cares about Europe?
That's what happens if one is no longer the master of ones own destiny.
An OUTSIDER will determine how "well" you should do.
After 1945, GB and France were stifled, and their empires employed as tools to fight the enemy created with the Truman Doctrine (1947). The Old World's power "invested in" and European power was "extended," fighting communism, the same language used in modern strategy papers.
Today, the Ukraine is used as an "investment" and a tool to "extend" Russia (actual language used in US strategy papers). The deceivers and "investors" consider this the "acme of professionalism" (Gen. Kellogg) to set others up to fight their wars for them and make them bleed for US interests.
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe (the exchange between Matlock and Kissinger in 1994).
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
"Draw lines" around human beings, and then employ them as pawns, bishops, knights, rooks, queens...until the king succeeds, fails or has to give up.
"Never argue with fools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ― Mark Twain.
Me: Never argue with imperialist/globalist tools. They will drag you down to their level of stupidity and maul you with INexperience. Tools so busy "pointing fingers" that they are too stupid to figure out how where and how they fit in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@morehumanity ....but, but, but..."Rambo" said that Muslims are our fwiends...sniff, sniff...
The commies, were "the enemy", making our ideological enemy (stone-aged Muslims) our "fwiends".
That is what my leaders says all the time...
Even though before, the commies were our "fwiends" when the Nazis were our enemies...boo, hooo...this is so complicated. Sniff, sniff...
And tomorrow?
"Nazis" as "fwiends", "united" against...ahem..."world Muslimry"?
Yes, I guess explaining the process of eternal war in order to expand influence, and to gain spheres of influence, overtaxes some people's brain :-)
1
-
1
-
Why BREXIT?
Because:
One war in the ME is enough.
It seems as if there are forces behind Trump, which are setting the stage for another war here...
Here are the signs for war:
1) North Korea: make peace, in order to free forces and avoid 'bandwagon effect' (Kim allying with Moscow, via the common border)
2) UN: disgrace the UN with a smear campaign (neutral observer, as opposed to...ahem..."embedded journalists")
3) set up Riyad as a US lapdog, to carry out a 'false flag' in the Gulf (read, I mean really READ the headlines)
4) EU: chisel away at the unity of the EU, already with good results in Poland and GB (Brexit as "divide and rule" tool, for a two front war scenario for Russia, and lighting rods for Russian nukes)
5) Palestinian /Israeli conflict: get Saudi Arabia to "sign away" (sacrifice) the Palestinian cause (free the back of this "smiling prince" aka Washington's lapdog, to attack Iran)
Remember what Putin said.
"You shall not pass".
My advice, unless we wish to argue about "who started it" on clay tablets in the near future, is to heed that warning...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nothing "jaw dropping" visible here at all.
A simple tool, doing his "tool"-thing to distract from the big picture.
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages.
In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roma era instruments of POWER), but cannot be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
“Offensive realism.”
“Defensive realism.”
The Albion is on a marching route, and has its tools called "collective West" in check, via a giant cyclic dynamical system called "Globalism"...
Russia has been on the defensive since 1990. Richard Black, fmr. US Senator: "We don’t care how many Ukrainians die. How many women, children, civilians, military will die. It’s like an important football match, and we want to win."
You are the game to these people.
They don't care about you.
Whether it's the Ukraine or anywhere else on the planet acting as their proxy to "extend" (see strategy papers, as the desired effect of meddling) others with violence and war.
Save yourself a discussion with the so-called "collective Western" ideologically indoctrinated, and chest-thumping dogmatists with their "paperwork". Most representatives of these types are completely resistant to arguments. It's a waste of time. That's why they immediately engage in whataboutism, resort to cognitive biases/fallacious argumentation, deflect otherwise (finger pointing), or even personally attack anyone who dares to even critically question their sacred narratives. Their immaculate "heroes" (POV), their ideologies, and belief systems, are beyond reproach, and anybody who attributes the millions of deaths on the marching routes of their man-made systems the EFFECTS of own meddling, is "a danger".
These types thrive in large money-driven collectivized and ideologically motivated "think tanks", and these systems have 24/7 and 365 days a year to come up with some or other lame excuse for every argument to deflect away from very simple logic and reason. One of the world's oldest strategies: "Do not do to others, as you do not wish to be done unto." The causal chain of effects leads back to the root cause of every human conflict.
Yes, the GOLDEN RULE is an actual strategy of power. Stick to it to avoid laying the foundation for crises, or creating conflict potential, or use it as guiding principle to avoid differences from spiraling out of control.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, they chose "more than the measure."
You will have to figure it out yourself.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a noun, and a defined term.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Like the ideology of democracy.
YES, believe it or not, what YOU believe in, is an ideology.
Similar to this concept are systems of beliefs, systems of ideas, and systems of ideals.
ALL of these, need "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
They need you, yes, YOU, to lie, and kill, so they can steal in the background, and YOU, yes, "you", are not better that anybody else on this planet if you lie, and kill for an ideology.
These dumbed down masses reveal themselves by the way the speak...
They are all tools, of others.
These power players preach from their "boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy".
Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of them, must be wrong.
When one criticizes an ideologue's ideology, they expose their true nature.
1
-
HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books.
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source)
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies.
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
EPISODE I:
"... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
EPISODES II thru IV:
Lotsa other stuff happening.
EPISODE V:
If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003
Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice.
Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power.
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamalbaklau6661 ok
Your "timeline" is incorrect, and therefore you are confusing "cause" and "effect".
Let's take it 1 step at a time, to show how you've been fooled.
Did you know that the UN controlled Sanai was set up after the 1956 war to protect Egypt from Israeli (together with France and GB) aggression?
Yup.
After that war, the world decided that Egypt needed protection from Israeli expansionism.
Ten years later, the Sanai isolated Israel from Egypt.
Fine.
Then, Israel started the provocations against Syria.
Of course, comfortable in the fact of being far stronger than Syria, and that Egypt couldn't interfere in case of a war between Syria and Israel, because of the UN buffer zone.
After Israeli provocation increased, Egypt therefore asked for the removal of the UN, in an effort to stop Israeli provocations against Syria.
Note, the UN proposed keeping the buffer zone intact, by moving to the Israeli side of the border, but Israel refused.
Israel didn't want the UN there.
Furthermore, Israeli historians have already agreed that both 1956, and 1967 were "wars of CHOICE".
The archives have already revealed the lies still being sold to kids on "History Channel*.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@3vimages471 I have more than 30 years of reading, and thousands of books under the belt.
With millions of memorized facts, it becomes clear that most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised.
"Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, it won't be the first time in history that Europe's strongest nation was made "the enemy" as default setting by a few "lords", even though at a time (all throughout the mid-19th century, right up to 1880s) when most leaders, business partnerships, and common folks got along just fine...
[From Britannica...."Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."]
The truth of course, that an own policy determined that no geopolitical form of co-operation with Germany was possible as secretly decided in London.
Policy?
The strongest nation is the enemy/rival.
Some things never change...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spencermccormick2959 The events later called WW1 & WW2 were a part of the same conflagration which started around the year 1900, with the naval powers encircling their continental neighbours.
For the American Century after the year 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger chunk of land than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": the technique used by Washington DC was the same, which is to make use of existing divisions. An ACTIVE means, of making use of such divisions, is known as the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy. A proactive means to further own interests at the expense of others, is to favor some (increasing the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decreasing the power of the snubbed).
For the ACTIVELY ENGAGED "divider" the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in order to achieve the useful division for the higher power, are not important. These are the 99% ancillary details of history. As an example of such "99% ancillary details, we can refer to any speech, by any politician ever. Empty words, directed at the listeners limbic brain system. See above speech. BECAUSE..it doesn't matter how division is implemented, or how existing divides are deepened, or who aids for whatever reasons, or whether those aiding and abetting division are even aware that they are aiding division: what matters is that it is implemented.
For the divider it is not important why the tools cooperate, but the fact that the tools cooperate in creating division in overpowering a chunk of the planet somewhere.
Why and that are different premises...
The empire in search of gain disguised by the "only interests"-narrative, does not care about the "why" or "what" you think is "true"...
The conflagration unfolding after 1914 was another European 30 years war (with a 20-year break in between) and had virtually the same powers set up against each other, with a few exceptions (Japan and Italy as newbies or "turncoats"). Details are not important. They are the "99%" of history, which bear no impact on HOW events unfolded.
The powers set up thus were:
1) the naval powers (Great Britain/USA) with their continental "buck catchers" (like France after 1904, and Russia after 1907, for example).
against:
2) the continental alliances, which were encircled and kept from reaching sufficient spheres of influence to grow, by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy started as premeditated action by the naval powers around 1900.
In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", which is a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The end effect of the setup of 1) and 2) was that Western- and Central Europe were virtually destroyed as centers of power, and the USA then used the effect to grind the British Empire into a more manageable "junior partner"-status by use of a premeditated strategy planned after 1940, just after the start of the "second round" of this conflagration. Or as Ricky Gervais would quip, "kick the midget British Empire" in the "bollocks" because after WW2 London was so weak that it could not forge a useful "pattern of relations" (George Kennan, see below) to fight back, and save its own markets from their "best friends".
After 1945 the USA used its own might as "hammer" and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). Stalin (Moscow) of course, smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and the other remaining European states' weaknesses, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2, overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centred imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003. Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power. When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
London poured their division upon the planet, incl. their neighbours, waging the finger and exposing every weakness, in search of alignments for own gain, however carefully hidden. But in the town of Washington DC today, it is well-known that their (economically) fat and (systemically) psychopathic "saviours" economically thrashed London in their hour of weakness after 1945, to within inches of their (colonial) lives, and took their beautiful Empire away from them. Inspired by "The Wall/Pink Floyd": Take out one "brick" at a time, hoping the "bricks" won't notice how the entire entity is weakened...
Thus, they pulled the bricks out of the wall of European strength, until it collapsed. And that collapse included London, and their Empire, not altruistically but the causal effect of London's wish to CONTROL or dominate their neighbors. Their own failure came about as an effect of their own inbuilt systemic greed and individual stupidity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here is the situation, from a neutral analysis:
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal: a few grams of weed...
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, patrolled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
History has proven again and again, not to argue with fools, or bow to the logic of the bootlickers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
@JohnyWicky-f1g It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The events later called WW1 & WW2 were a part of the same conflagration which started around the year 1900, with the naval powers encircling their continental neighbours.
For the American Century after the year 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger chunk of land than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": the technique used by Washington DC was the same, which is to make use of existing divisions. An ACTIVE means, of making use of such divisions, is known as the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy. A proactive means to further own interests at the expense of others, is to favor some (increasing the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decreasing the power of the snubbed).
For the ACTIVELY ENGAGED "divider" the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in order to achieve the useful division for the higher power, are not important. These are the 99% ancillary details of history. As an example of such "99% ancillary details, we can refer to any speech, by any politician ever. Empty words, directed at the listeners limbic brain system. See above speech. BECAUSE..it doesn't matter how division is implemented, or how existing divides are deepened, or who aids for whatever reasons, or whether those aiding and abetting division are even aware that they are aiding division: what matters is that it is implemented.
For the divider it is not important why the tools cooperate, but the fact that the tools cooperate in creating division in overpowering a chunk of the planet somewhere.
Why and that are different premises...
The empire in search of gain disguised by the "only interests"-narrative, does not care about the "why" or "what" you think is "true"...
The conflagration unfolding after 1914 was another European 30 years war (with a 20-year break in between) and had virtually the same powers set up against each other, with a few exceptions (Japan and Italy as newbies or "turncoats"). Details are not important. They are the "99%" of history, which bear no impact on HOW events unfolded.
The powers set up thus were:
1) the naval powers (Great Britain/USA) with their continental "buck catchers" (like France after 1904, and Russia after 1907, for example).
against:
2) the continental alliances, which were encircled and kept from reaching sufficient spheres of influence to grow, by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy started as premeditated action by the naval powers around 1900.
In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", which is a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The end effect of the setup of 1) and 2) was that Western- and Central Europe were virtually destroyed as centers of power, and the USA then used the effect to grind the British Empire into a more manageable "junior partner"-status by use of a premeditated strategy planned after 1940, just after the start of the "second round" of this conflagration. Or as Ricky Gervais would quip, "kick the midget British Empire" in the "bollocks" because after WW2 London was so weak that it could not forge a useful "pattern of relations" (George Kennan, see below) to fight back, and save its own markets from their "best friends".
After 1945 the USA used its own might as "hammer" and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). Stalin (Moscow) of course, smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and the other remaining European states' weaknesses, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2, overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centred imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003. Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power. When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
London poured their division upon the planet, incl. their neighbours, waging the finger and exposing every weakness, in search of alignments for own gain, however carefully hidden. But in the town of Washington DC today, it is well-known that their (economically) fat and (systemically) psychopathic "saviours" economically thrashed London in their hour of weakness after 1945, to within inches of their (colonial) lives, and took their beautiful Empire away from them. Inspired by "The Wall/Pink Floyd": Take out one "brick" at a time, hoping the "bricks" won't notice how the entire entity is weakened...
Thus, they pulled the bricks out of the wall of European strength, until it collapsed. And that collapse included London, and their Empire, not altruistically but the causal effect of London's wish to CONTROL or dominate their neighbors. Their own failure came about as an effect of their own inbuilt systemic greed and individual stupidity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Geopolitics links what he states here, to the big picture.
There is a fracture zone between the big global players (USA/EU, Russia, China) running from the North Pole, through the Baltic States, Poland and Ukraine, via the Caucasus, Iran, and towards Israel. Another fracture zone is the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa (incl. Israel), from there through India, SE Asia (incl. Vietnam), through Taiwan, the Koreas, Japan, Taiwan, back up to the North Pole.
Expect Washington DC, either in collaboration with a NATO state, or tacidly nodded off by the EU, to instigate crises and wars EVERYWHERE on these "fracture zones," because it is the only way they can hang on the the good ol' days a bit longer: their role of the hegemon of the world, and that of the American Century.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
1
-
1
-
You might wish to familiarize him with the divide and rule strategy of the elites, incl. the Norwegian elites.
Unfortunately, our revered "democracies" cannot avoid bully tactics and strategies being employed, on every level of politics, on all levels (intent of gain systems).
Regarding "the bully", and human nature, there is a direct connection between how individuals and states act and react: obviously, since states are made up of individuals with an intent of gain motive. One can therefore draw comparissons between the micro level of individuals or small scale systems (society and companies), and the macro level of corporations, big power interests, and therefore states and empires.
They all act, and react in similar ways, and the connecting link is strategy.
Dr. Gary Namie conducted an exhaustive series of micro level studies to conclude that there are four categories of toxic bullies in society and the workplace, based on the carefull observation and close encounters with other human beings. The four types of bullies are the Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper.
Screaming Mimi is the fist-wielding screamer who chooses a public setting in order to vociferously point fingers in your face...
Two-Headed Snake is the Jekyll and Hyde back-stabber, who steals the credit for the hard work of others. They smile and are 100% in control of body language with studied "backpats" and superficial compliments, yet behind the back spread lies, rumor, innuendo in order to damage reputations of adversaries...
The Constant Critic is another one of the "finger pointing"-variety of of "friends", who's not above falsifying information, or burning documents, to pin “mistakes” on others...
The Gatekeepers withhold resources others need to succeed, jealously guarding own privileges against other systems trying to make it...
Our history books are full of warnings against the "screaming Mimi" variety, characterized by images of a fist-wielding screaming Hitler, yet when it comes to other bully tactics, the inhabitants of various systems of gain become remarkably acquiescent, apologetic, and complacent about observed, or unobserved actions of bullying. Bullying is of course nothing else but a strategy, and because the other three bully types are easily disguised, the overwhelming number of citizens of western style democracies go to bed each night, secure in the knowledge that they live in superior systems (democracy/capitalism). Both democracy and capitalism are designed to overpower and conquer other systems, but the means they use are more difficult to spot.
Not for the first time in history, the opportunity to sign a mutually agreeable comprehensive European security agreement was bypassed, to the mutual detriment of all European systems: "President Dmitry Medvedev presented the initial proposal for a revision of the European security system during his visit to Berlin in June 2008. The proposal included the signature of a legally binding treaty (involving all states and organisations active in Europe). The Russian proposal has been subsequently repeated on many occasions, including by the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov in his address to the UN General Assembly in September 2008 ... During World Policy Conference in Evian, France on 8 October, the Russian president explained the original idea more precisely by presenting the five principles on which the new system should be based. The key element of Medvedev’s plan remains the postulate of equal security for all, which, if implemented, would mean that no actions that might be perceived as threatening the security of others would be allowed ..." CES Commentary, Center for Eastern Studies, 16.10.2008
Empires come in 4 toxic flavors: The Screaming Mimi, the Two-Headed Snake, the Constant Critic, and the Gatekeeper.
We as individuals are constantly warned about the first, but we should watch out for what we're not being told: keep a lookout for the last three.
To "avoid avoiding war" by the strategy of "pushing until something snaps" is one characteristic.
Bullies also manipulate millions of people, via mostly loyal squires or henchmen.
Re. the question why all the observed reality is allowed to happen, is based on human nature, and the nature of our prefered systems of capitalism/democracy.
The supreme bully strategy is that of divide and rule: Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lennard Church They were "invited" by a third party. So, even worse. Imagine I get "invited" to settle in your house by a third party?
At this this point, I'm not sure if you KNOW what's been going on for a hundred years, but don't CARE, or whether you DON'T KNOW, and are not willing to find out...
Jewish land purchases have ALWAYS had a political background. There has ALWAYS been a strategy to land purchases (right from the start in the mid-19th century).
Right from the start, "money" and "a deed" were used as weapons, in a strategic game...
Here, to exemplify what has been going on since around 1850...
https://www.haaretz.com/1.5162149
Do you think the locals were stupid, and did not know what happened to Native Americans before that, who were ALSO fooled by the same old game of white colonialism?
First...put your foot into the door...
Second...use that foothold to EXPAND....
Third...bring in more and more and more of your own, displacing the original inhabitants...
Four...DEMAND political rights...
Five...Dispose of the original inhabitants, put them in "reservations", or allow them the "right" of becoming 2nd- class (or even 3rd-class if proxies are involved) citizens...
Tell me. How many Arabs were there on the Kibbutzim as EQUAL partners in the late-19th, or early-20th century?
These people were NOT STUPID. They knew what happened to indigenous people everywhere over the world over the previous 500 years when white colonists showed up, and OBVIOUSLY resisted...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@admetussenatorofthesullane7759 Do not argue with fools: boycott.
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join up...
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century, just like every other POTUS in history. Some might have been more openly imperialistic, but they all served an expansive empire.
Peace? YES.
Idolatry? No.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Fact is that Trump, or any other previous admin, did not stop this "(systemic) slow march".
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemony.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quiet or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
Just claim hero status for the self, and blame everybody else for everything which goes wrong.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Already predicted. Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jabibgalt5551 From wiki:
" The 1980s oil glut led to anexternal debt crisis and a long-running economic crisis. Inflation peaked at100% in 1996 and poverty rates rose to 66% in 1995[13] as (by 1998) per capitaGDP fell to the same level as 1963, down a third from its 1978 peak.[14] The recovery of oil prices in the early 2000s gave Venezuela oil funds not seen since the 1980s.[15] The Venezuelan government under Hugo Chávez then established populist social welfare policies that initially boosted the Venezuelan economy and increased social spending, temporarily[16] reducingeconomic inequality and poverty in the early years of the regime.[20] However, such populist policies[21] later became inadequate, causing the nation's collapse as their excesses—including a uniquely extreme fossil fuel subsidy[22]—are widely blamed for destabilizing the nation's economy. The destabilized economy led to a crisis in Venezuela, resulting in hyperinflation, an economic depression,[23] shortages of basic goods[24] and drastic increases in unemployment,[25] poverty,[26] disease, child mortality, malnutrition and crime. "
End of quote
1
-
@jabibgalt5551 According to the definition, socialism is:
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Miriam Webster
Yes, I know what socialism is.
China has socialism.
Be be exact, it is a Marxists Socialist state, and a very successful one.
Therefore, the logical conclusion is that it isn't "socialism" alone which is a problem, but rather a whole collection of problems which lead to decline.
Read any well researched article about the decline of Venezuela, and you'll see that it was firsto populism (Chavez used state income to redistribute to supporters, i.e. oil revenues to fund social programs). These programs had the effect of reducing poverty, and that worked as long as the price of oil remained high. The problems started when the price of oil dipped.
After the price of oil rose again, US sanctions blocked sales.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ASIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside systems can "surf in and skim off the profits of division". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS OR PERSONAL PRIORITIES
Most European people are far too daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive them too, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that they end up thinking everything they do is justified, with "only a few exceptions" in order to seem fair...
Has your nation, or a leader already been "chosen as a favorite son of the West"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have with neighbors aside, or settle them fast peacefully, and don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme. Actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples across all borders.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these Western "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU today, for the gain of the outside Western Powers, just like divide and rule sacrificed your grandparents and previous Asian generations during the Era of Imperialism...
------------------------
P.S.: I cannot personally post this message myself too often, since YT autoblocks it as "spam" if I copy and paste it under videos too often. I need YOUR help. In your own interest of safety, please spread this message with regards to the age-old "divide and rule"-strategy of outside (non-Asian) powers. Thank You.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Excellent comment. People forget that terrorism is an "effect", and not a cause.
The cause of terrorism is usually situational, not dispositional. In other words, the age-old "freedom fighters" vs. "terrorist" debate.
From 1919 on wards, Jews were "terrorist/freedom fighters" (Irgun, Lehi, Haganah), because THEY were the ones fighting for the homeland. Now that they have declared their "homeland", they are being confronted by....viola..."terrorists" (freedom fighters?)
We shouldn't forget that a "terrorist/freedom fighter" kickstarted WW1 in 1914, with the political assassination of the heir to a throne (funded and supported by a neighboring state, Serbia). Today, we would call that "political instigation". Imagine the outrage in the USA if Canada supported and carried out the assassination of a US presidential candidate. War?
Yes, and of course you've already mentioned the countless European freedom fighters/ terrorists. The IRA appeared AFTER the British carved up Ireland, and took Ulster into the UK.
Note, situational, not dispositional.
Nobody WANTS to become a terrorist/freedom fighter. It is usually the situation which lures them to it.
So, everybody...tear me apart :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, poor Patricia...thinking one can "delete" reality.
Reality?
The 12 millions Germans expelled from Eastern Europe, and whose misery you are gloating about, actually protected the British Empire.
By removing them, London no longer had the leverage to enforce treaties, or protect own interests.
Really as simple as that...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...
1
-
1
-
1
-
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of West Asia (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders have made use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people. First Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give a weak mind money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equally.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
1
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. The USA could afford to wait. Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes.
The "syndrome" is implicit bias, which blinds fans of certain power players or political ideologies.
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemon.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quite or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Already predicted. See below comments section.
Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
1
-
Yes, an imperialist.
Trump and his admin, also "signed away" East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (territorial expansion for the favored nation) and orchestrated the Abrahamic Accords without first settling the Palestinian question permanently, with an equal state for Palestians. In other words, Washington DC refused to get tough with Tel Aviv, by demanding an end to the occupation, and demanding an end to the Knesser's stand on Greater Israel, with a subjected (quote Rabin/quote Netanyahu "less than a state" status for Palestinians).
Such an endorsement of the apartheid reality in Israel ever since forever, made Oct 7th, and the current slow unravelling of the Abrahamic Accords following Israeli "responses" to Oct 7th (escalation, spiral model) a predictable outcome in game theory.
1
-
Oh the "good friends" Winnie made...
On one side, Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
And the other "good friends"?
The cute "uncle Joe"?
Stalin figured out that Washington DC (US Senate and Congress) wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. What are you going to do about it?"
And down went GB and her interests, and empire.
From unmistakable nr.1 in the year 1900, down to third fiddle in less than a lifetime.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
British leaders ended the war under the rather childish delusion that their "best fwiends" were going to let them become a nuclear power in 1945.
The question then, why it took GB 7 years after WW2, to carry out their 1st nuclear test, even though the technology had already been developed by international scientist (also British) before 1945.
Because its the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and "cute Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world really works...
Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world "you shall not have nuclear weapons!"
[Google how that unfolded with: "history/british-nuclear-program]
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
1945 Washington DC: "If you want nukes, develop them yourself. In the meantime, I'll dismantle your empire. What are you going to do about it?"
That's how leverage works.
Rule Britannia, replaced by the American Century.
Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana.
Why didn't Washington DC/The American Century give their "special friends" the secret of nuclear bombs in 1945?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They paid the price later on.
Re. "Who benefited most from Mers, and who lost most".
The general consensus is that The British Empire was the "winner", and that "France was the loser".
Wrong.
Reality? For the second time in 20 years, "the lights would go out", and others would benefit. Because, the type of rule or economy plays little role in the outcome of whether one "rules the world" or not.
Geography plays a far bigger role.
So at the turn of century London "ruled the world" because geography isolated them from the continent and their island status gave them the upper hand at a time when war was still the common way to determine "top dog" or not....
When development of weapons produced ever further reaching weapons of war, GB's island status did not offer the same measure of protection anymore...so they went down.
The weapons of 1900 couldn't harm the British Empire, but the weapons of 1945 could....
In that era around WW2, it was the USA which was (as the sole power) isolated from this "great game", and benefited as the result of its geographical isolation, and because there was that "one ring which ruled them all"...lol, but in a good way of course.
And it wasn't only the forces of evil who wanted to "rule the world", but also people who thought they had a God-given right to do so...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
...and who thought they were better than everybody else...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
David Ben-Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
“Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. … Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice.”
— David Ben Gurion. Quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan’s “Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.
“We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return.”
David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar’s Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.
1
-
1
-
Wir sollten aufhören, Lügen, Fehlinformationen, betrügerische Praktiken, Doppelzüngigkeit und andere Mittel, mit denen Millionen von Menschen absichtlich oder unabsichtlich getäuscht werden, als „Fehler“ oder „kleine Versehen“ zu bezeichnen.
Wir sprechen über Politik.
In den meisten Fällen geht es höchstwahrscheinlich darum, die Menschen zu verwirren und abzulenken.
Es ist Politik, also heißt es in den meisten Fällen „Teile und Herrsche“.
------------------------------------------------------
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of West Asia (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders have made use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people. First Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give a weak mind money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equally.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nuqwestr True, that "systemic" part.
But a law doesn't "cure" a racist, same as a speed restriction doesn't stop somebody from driving too fast.
So, the racists simply had to find other ways of keeping "others" on the "other side of the tracks".
No, I have no convictions.
But I don't hold it against anybody, especially not if the laws under which such convictions once took place were dumb or had an evil ulterior motive.
You do know that if convicted, "fellons" couldn't vote, right?
Guess who got disproportionately policed, searched, rounded up, convicted?
1
-
The times when Russia could still trust the USA, NATO and the EU in Europe are over. After three years of war on their borders, which grew out of events kickstarted in the 1990s, every well-informed Russian from the very top tiers to the very bottom in Russian society, has clearly understood that the West's strategic goal has always been and still is to destroy Russia. The intention is to use the Ukraine to "extend Russia" (RAND Report language of the proxy) and end it as a sovereign, unified state, to seize its gigantic resources by carving it up into smaller pieces per strategy paper, and to use them for the benefit of the West (corporatism). For a TEMPLATE of that divide-and-rule strategy of systemic encroachment, see the Chinese Century of Humiliation (1837-1947). Reality? If the people of a region of the planet is too pre-occupied or deceived to figure that they will lose if they do not unite, and OTHERS gain from their DISUNITY, then that region will "reap" from the division they bowed down to...
What our strategists want is a RUSSIAN CENTURY OF HUMILIATION, in which they are in the position to gut these regions like a Christmas turkey from a position of power.
This encroachment or encirclement did not "start" recently, but has historical roots.
The same old "game" as always. See Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read the "Americanization of the World" (W.T. Stead/1901) with regards to morphing entire regions of the planet, as cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket for the US/collective West imperialist modus operandi. This ideological and systemic expansion can be taken directly from numerous public statements made by current US power players, representatives and senators. One can only hope that the US/EU/NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine does not lead to a nuclear war. These OUTSIDE forces wish to gain advantages on the "marching routes" (footnote), by drawing lines on the map FOR others, without their implicit consent (see Friedmann/Stratfor, 2015). There will be no unity in Eurasia or peace unless the USA drastically reduces its involvement in Europe/Eurasia. If NATO and the EU are not going to be reformed to become what they once were, as organizations that were solely focused on prosperity and peace in a limited region of the planet (North Atlantic). Because, as everyone can see from the events of the last 30 years, the EU/NATO is no longer that. They have tried to become an "empire" with a "marching route" (footnote) and they bowed down to the American Century.
Europe never acknowledged that they had suffered through centuries of shame, because of all the pathetic finger pointing, and will therefore always be easily divided. Therefore, their CENTURY OF SHAME will continue. Luke 8:17: "For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor anything hidden that will not be known and come to light." How long before Europe's deceived and divided find out that the division is fuelled by outsiders bowing down to the dollar hegemony as if a god?
Footnote:
The depiction of states and empires as human being, or lifeforms with torsos (centers of economy) with hearts (feelings and hubris), and minds (strategic thinking centers of power), and limbs (military systems like "hands/fingers" as "extensions" of the body which can be sacrificed for gain), are an old way of depicting the reality of empires with feet and "marching routes". Certain people will, however, always ascribe their own "marching routes" as "saving the world." The accompanying Black Legend is an old technique of systemically creating the "enemy" out of the economic rival. The term can be researched by simply searching for "Black Legend".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NathanielHiggerson Sorry. I'm not biased.
The reality?
As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Reality? "Politicians are the best example of how idealists can become idiots, because it can only be an idiot who believes that peace can be forced through war." - Stephanie Guss
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS.
Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite?
Today we see millions of followers of Islam, praying in their mosques in West Asia, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS, and 125 years ago we saw millions of followers of Christ, praying in their churches, being set up against each other by the clout of OUTSIDERS. Oh, wait...we didn't see it...
We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", and "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition are the "bad guys".
1
-
1
-
The events later called WW1 & WW2 were a part of the same conflagration which started around the year 1900, with the naval powers encircling their continental neighbours.
For the American Century after the year 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger chunk of land than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": the technique used by Washington DC was the same, which is to make use of existing divisions.
An ACTIVE means, of making use of such divisions, is known as the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy.
A proactive means to further own interests at the expense of others, is to favor some (increasing the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decreasing their power.)
For the ACTIVELY ENGAGED "divider" the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in order to achieve the useful division for the higher power, are not important. These are the 99% ancillary details of history. It doesn't matter how division is implemented, or how existing divides are deepened, or who aids for whatever reasons, or whether those aiding and abetting division are even aware that they are aiding division: what matters is that it is implemented.
For the divider it is not important why the tools cooperate, but the fact that the tools cooperate in creating division in overpowering a chunk of the planet somewhere.
Why and that are different premises...
The empire does not care about the "why".
The conflagration unfolding after 1900 was another European 30 years war (with a 20-year break in between) and had virtually the same powers set up against each other, with a few exceptions (Japan and Italy as newbies or "turncoats"). Details are not important. They are the "99%" of history, which bear no impact on HOW events unfolded.
The powers set up as imperialist war/conflagration of interests were:
1) the naval powers (Great Britain/USA) with their continental "buck catchers" (like France after 1904, and Russia after 1907, for example).
against:
2) the continental alliances, which were encircled and kept from reaching sufficient spheres of influence to grow, by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy started as premeditated action by the naval powers around 1900.
In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", which is a defined term, and a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception.
This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919).
The end effect of the setup of 1) and 2) was that Western- and Central Europe were virtually destroyed as centers of power, and the USA then used the effect to grind the British Empire into a more manageable "junior partner"-status by use of a premeditated strategy planned after 1940, just after the start of the "second round" of this conflagration. Or as Ricky Gervais would quip, "kick the midget British Empire" in the "bollocks" because after WW2 London was so weak that it could not forge a useful "pattern of relations" (George Kennan, see below) to fight back, and save its own markets from their "best friends".
After 1945 the USA used its own might as "hammer" and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). Stalin (Moscow) of course, smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and the other remaining European states' weaknesses, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2, overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France. Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centred imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003. Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power. When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl, as they (quote Ricky Gervais) "kicked their friends in the (economic) bollocks" but the friends couldn't kick back...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The entire USA/collective West is NATO, and they were "poking the bear" as collective effort. Now all these weak minds are scurrying around, trying to find somebody more guilty than themselves. An age-old blame game.
N ew
A tlanticist
T erritorial
O peration
The stick poking the bear...or as John Mearsheimer famously predicted, the "buck passers" setting up millions of people in the "favoured country" to "catch the buck" if the effort to encroach/encircle another state failed, so others bleed for the own expansive aims. Now they are "poking the Dragon (China)"...
This is divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans.
- Caucasus region/Black Sea (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those being encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon.
This is divide-and-rule.
This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their current subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
------------------------------------
The bigger picture can be distorted, and the strategy of divide-and-rule hidden behind narratives of benevolence...
For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented (de facto reality). For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
What lessons can we learn from the current mess in the Ukraine?
Lesson 1:
Don't become the "next Ukraine".
Lesson 2:
Don't forget "Lesson 1".
1
-
Correct.
Hasan should have concentrated on the core issue, which is "US meddling", and the results of that.
Most Americans are not aware of history.
They "don't know and don't care" that it was the west, and after 1950 mostly the USA which has caused the current sh*tstorm in the ME, because of the desire to rule (directly or indirectly via puppets) over the strategic value (geostrategy) and resources.....oil. Nuff said.
Because 90% of Americans are clueless, they fall for emotional snowflake arguments.
Truth is, the USS is responsible, and their elites know it.
The elites also know that 90% of Americans are clueless emotional individuals, easily swayed by emotional arguments...
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster [quoted from globalresearch.ca]
The start of US meddling in THEIR world...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Divide and rule.
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markmd9 False equivallence...
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trying to explain how systems use strategies of power to people blinded by ideology or idealism is a waste of time. Like trying to explain what color looks like to somebody who is blind, or what classical music sounds like, to somebody who is deaf. These people would rather end up in the muddy trench, deceived into going there by their own leaders...
THE PATTERN ALWAYS RHYMES
Arabian Peninsula = Between the sea and the sea (Mediterranean/Indian Oceans) and should have included ALL peoples who lived here. The barriers to unity were in the brain (divisive tribal thinking), to the detriment of all when the outside "dividers" came. The lines in the sands were historically drawn by outsiders/empires to achieve gain, and are currently USED by empires to perpetuate gain for the own systems. The DIVIDED are led like lambs to the slaughter. Blind with regards to their own roles in the divide-and-rule strategy of OUTSIDERS.
Historically, who gained from DIVISION these past 125 years?
Who would have gained from a fair UNITY on the Arabian Peninsula, when the faraway "empires" came for them after WW1? Correct answer: the people who lived there.
After WW1 the British- and French empires used the divide-and-rule technique, to carve up the Arabian Peninsula and subvert all the people living here. The lines were drawn to carve up the oil resources, strategically valuable territory, and to AVOID one power from gaining too much of the POWER which these reserves would afford them.
The "divide-and-rule strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it creates ingroups of "empire fans" who gain and can become very very rich, even as millions of others suffer.
THE PATTERN ALWAYS RHYMES
Treaty of Versailles = Divide and rule of and over neighbours (Europe/Eurasia), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbours whom the dividers wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weakened local systems who "lost the war" and which they wished to create top down). After WW1 European leaders who did not understand the logic of Chesterton's fence, and destroyed what they did not understand (European Balance of Power, as per Concert of Europe, 1815). Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such systemic "line drawing" agreements/accords?
Zoom into the present...
THE PATTERN ALWAYS RHYMES
Abrahamic Accords = Divide and rule of and over direct neighbours (Arabian Peninsula), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbours whom they wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weaker local systems). Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such agreements/accords? The leaders of West Asia are all "divided loyalties" as long as they bow down to outside interests and value their own vested interests before the interests of the entire region (oil resources which had been turned into US/EU/Swiss assets for a few chosen ones over the span of 50 years, or the "my precious borders"-mentality of ideologues, past the well-being of the majority of the own peoples).
One of the biggest misconceptions of history is the ability of the ideologically/systemically indoctrinated individual to view themselves as unique when part of a bigger group, whereas as a general rule their own histories rhyme with other historical events, based on the systemic analysis. The will to keep the own systems APART from their neighbours (divided by ideology and rulings) always backfires, when one is no longer "King of the Mountain" (strategy of power). By the time everything implodes, the rulers/dividers are long gone, having previously brought their own wealth and families to safe havens. This subsection of history will repeat, again and again.
Don't make the same mistake. Do not fight for division and empty promises by outsiders. YOUR "horizons" are given to you by the texts in your own history books, which tend or intend to LIMIT your horizon, not open it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just for context:
She delivered an unrequested sermon...
“As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true,” Chow wrote. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman.
Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
Again, Christians try to define what is "right", and then cry foul if they are called out for their narrow mindedness....
Nobody asked her to give a sermon, and quite frankly, people are tired of it.
Nobody has to listen to anybody's personal opinions about "right vs wrong".
The founding fathers drafted the Declaration of Independence, that grants every American the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and hapiness "
Yup, as a real American, that trumps your or mine, or some random Christian's sermon any day, don't you think?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, it was quite easy solve.
What lacked was willpower.
As the definition "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
Everybody in America has the same rights to pursue "life, liberty and happiness".
It counts for Christians, Jews, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Native Americans, atheists, Scientologists, immigrants, LGBTQ community, hippies, farmers....rich, poor, you name it....
You have the right to practice any religion, and pray to your god whichever way you like (within the laws of the land), but the moment you try to restrict others in their pursuit of life according to their wishes, as Ms Chow did, then expect to be called out for it...
Leave others alone, and you will be left alone.
PragerU is using that "confusing cause and effect"- trick, by leaving out who started it...
Chow started it, by campaigning to rescind Title IX protection for fellow students, and linking that decision to her personal convictions.
[Note, the fact that she abstained is beside the point. The fact that she judged her fellow students in a 5-paragraph statement in which she called only her own lifestyle as being "good and true" is not even mentioned by PragerU]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
May all those future prospective "best little fwiends of America" take a very long, and very good, and very deep look.
This could be YOU in a few years time, if you don't deliver upon the prospect of "extending Russia" (US strategy paper talk about using millions of human lives as tools for their own US expansive aims) or "extending China" for American interests.
Millions dead, but Washington DC is salivating about your resources, and what's "in it for me."
Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Armenia, Georgia, Baltic States...and, and, and....
Take a good long hard look at "poor little Ukraine".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's always never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose.
Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever thought about what such a policy meant?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be written off...
It means these slimy deceitful Albions expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
To hell with them.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy..."
Me: ROFL
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary lines drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that "faraway empires" would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? It looks very interesting. Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies...
How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets they have. Want some..."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up. Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At 23:03 minutes, agreed 100% with Tom Sauer.
I think Washington DC knew perfectly well that their attempts to aggressively expand NATO into Georgia and the Ukraine would pose a great risk to these regions. It is not that they were stupid, it is that they didn't care.
War is a great divider of human beings. It creates mistrust, and fear will "divide" Europe again, just like the Truman Doctrine did, cut Europe off from more affordable Russian raw materials, bind the weak European poodle nations closer to Washington DC, and avoid what Brzinski wrote about as the Washington DC fear of a more united Eurasia.
Europeans killing Europeans, spreading hatred and fear, with Washington DC reaping the rewards while "sitting on the fence, eating popcorn and chips." For the warhawks in Washington DC, what's there not to like?
1
-
1
-
And so Brits bombed themselves into financial ruin.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Aww.
Best fwiend said "bend over and drop those pants" :-D
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Aww.
So sad.
Too bad.
Lost their impure empire, and then some...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kaiserbill99 I stick to definitions.
Not "snowflake feelings" and fairy tales about "empires pwotecting poor people" sniff sniff....
“Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.” ― Otto von Bismarck
Bismarck never intended to wage a "preventive war".
Obviously, it points at the failure of own politics, leading up to that point in time when that "fear" sets in, which then needed to be "prevented with suicide"...
World War 1 and World War 2 were preventive wars of course (according to the definition), declared by London in efforts to protect their own "Empire", and just like Bismarck predicted, ended in its own "suicide".
Or, in other words, if it gets to the point where one has to contemplate a "preventive war", it's obviously already too late to avoid a calamity, on a wider scale, which would drag all into ruin, even the "winners". Both "world" wars were started by London, by declaration, as attempts to protect from a potential threat (not necessarily a real threat, just "potential") to the British Empire.
Historians have to convince the reader that they were also necessary to avoid greater calamity at the time they were declared, not in hindsight.
Easy for WW2.
But WW1 is controversial, and if something is controversial, there is a justified reason why it is.
WW2 was sadly necessary in 1939, due to the bumbled peace after WW1.
Unlike WW1, which was entirely and easily avoidable because nobody really wanted it, WW2 was sadly unavoidable, therefore unpreventable by anybody, because both Hitler and Stalin wanted it. Note. Both.
Bismarck, realized it would be futile to try and achieve a really deep and lasting mutually beneficial agreement/treaty/accord with London, whilst the "attitude problem" persisted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They morphed strong monarchies ("princes") into weak democracies ("mercenaries"), then used entire regions as tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. The USA could afford to wait. Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
Footnote:
Note that according to Machiavelli, the "princes" connected to the land and who benefited from their hereditary rule were also the GATEKEEPERS and were connected to what they saw as theirs. Whether one likes this style of inherited wealth and power or not, their role was the gatekeepers of being the managers of own affairs. Opposed to that, in strategy and human nature, the "mercenary" is the OUTSIDER (internationalists/globalists) who came/come or the profit and gain and who are NOT "connected" to the land and its peoples at all, and place their own interests, often vested interests, BEFORE the people who live on the land. This narrative is often distorted today into meaning that "to be a Machiavelli is to be an a-hole" which is a distortion of what the book was about. Machiavelli states clearly to keep ones "princes" in POWER, for to lose them would mean losing the GATEKEEPERS, who via their own vested interests, also protect the people who live in entire regions of the world. Via Trojan Horses, "democracies" can be CAPTURED (culturally-, economically-, politically-, emotionally and militarily), as a process which can be studied as the actors reveal themselves through their actions/events. This can be studied as systemic analyses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy.
It gave whites ("Europeans") the basis of the power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other.
The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
Divide-and-rule was the advantage they held 100 and 200 years ago, and it still is today.
Teach your children well...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's about "management"...
"Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment.[1] The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking,[2] and accordingly, a critical thinker is one who practices the skills of critical thinking or has been schooled in its disciplines.[3] Richard W. Paul has suggested that the mind of a critical thinker engages both the intellectual abilities and personal traits necessary for critical thinking.[4] Critical thinking presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism[5][6] and sociocentrism." (Wiki)
"In that context (not a ref. to the above but a previous chapter in the book), how America "manages" Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 percent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about 60 percent of the world's GNP and about threefourths of the world's known energy resources. Eurasia is also the location of most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. After the United States, the next six largest economies and the next six biggest spenders on military weaponry are located in Eurasia. All but one of the world's overt nuclear powers and all but one of the covert ones are located in Eurasia. The world's two most populous aspirants to regional hegemony and global influence are Eurasian. All of the potential political and/or economic challengers to American primacy are Eurasian. Cumulatively, Eurasia's power vastly overshadows America's. Fortunately for America, Eurasia is too big to be politically one..." THE GRAND CHESSBOARD American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski
Critical question.
If that is the realisation, then what is the strategy to avoid that?
Ahem..."manages"...
Last time I checked, "thoughts and prayers" are neither a strategy, nor a management style.
What Brzezinski fails to elaborate on in his book, is that his "periphery" of states stretching from South East Asia, via the Indian subcontinent, through Africa and from there to South America, just like Great Britain and the U.S.A. was once the "periphery" of Europe...
1
-
It will be "history repeating". Please search for the McCollum Memorandum, about how Washington DC intended to goad Japan into "shooting first", so the US would have a suitable excuse to "just shoot back." The McCollum Memorandum, 1940, was a strategy paper written a full year before Pearl Harbor.
Pearl Harbor was part of the so-called "Lusitania Effect", which includes events like the completely random explosion of the Maine in 1898, which was misused to incite outrage in just enough of these "masses" to get the ball rolling towards war.
Regardless of the tier, the objective is ALWAYS to get the other guy to "shoot first", so one achieves the vital moral high ground, after which hardly anybody questions the original agendas of the own empire's expansive drive anymore. Strategy: if one can goad the rival into firing the first shots, then that "rival" becomes the "enemy" of citzens with a million pointing fingers. Citizens who had never been a part of the "behind closed doors"-planning stages, and who had never been asked whether they approved of such a strategy in any democratic way. Even worse, in the leadup to Dec 1941 Washington DC knew beforehand, based on archival evidence, that the most likely target of Japanese expansive aggression would be others. NOT (mostly) Americans, but the inhabitants of the Philippenes or other regions closer within the "reach" of the aggressively expanding Japanese empire, which were simply expected to "catch the buck" for the background planners of the American Century without Washington DC powermongers considering it of importance to ask anybody in these regions of the world how they felt about becoming such "DEAD buck catchers" for the USA. The expansion of the US sphere of global influence, was of course already in the planning stages, and it had started with the global phase of US Imperialism, around the year 1900. The goal was SE Asia. Such long-term setups, are also accompanied, "in the big picture" by the studied phenomena/strategy called "hate/fear mongering".
During WW1, the Lusitania outrage contributed greatly to the "favoratism" of the Allies by the USA. Favoratism also just happens to be a "divide and rule"-strategy of power. Favoratism is mostly afforded to friendly states/leaders located in strategically valuable locations on the map. These "friends" would then "catch the buck" in the setup, in case of crises or wars (France/Great Britain slipped into the roles of "buck catchers" for the rising American Century, in exactly the same way, simply "scaled up" to the suitable tier).
When historians like Neiberg "find evidence in the archives" about how "shocked" Washington DC was in May/June 1940, as they watched on in horror as their "buck catchers" caught the buck, and started crumbling, it is of course not a "surprise" if one already knows what the geopolitical setup BEFORE that had been, post-1900...
The reality gained by an observation of events, only the events, and the EVENTS only. Events, unlike human beings, don't lie or try to misrepresent the truth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
Use divide and rule on the planet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Do you understand what the "other side" wants?
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
1
-
Notice how Rabin never used the term "full sovereign state" when he referred to this "Palestine", but the term "less than a state." Did you spot the use of [Israel's] "natural growth"? Critical question... Where to? Where would Israelis/Zionists "naturally grow" to, if there were equal neighbors, as a balanced power, which could actually stop any such Zionist settler "growth".
It is fairly clear what they wanted, and there are historical examples for this: the "pool of cheap labor" within the own borders, given a little bit of "independence" to manage own affairs, but de facto/de jure powerless to stop the CONTROLLING power, intended to be Jerusalem, as Jewish capital city.
It is literally what RSA did with their "Bantustans". Back then the people could not be fooled. They saw through the deceit, and rightfully called it out for what it was: just another Apartheid ploy to avoid the rise of equals.
Sad reality? Today masses of fools are being mislead into praising Israel's attempted implementation of Apartheid, while at the same time denouncing a similar scheme actually implemented by the RSA, as being bigotted/rascist.
1
-
1
-
The "system" is not "broken."
The "system" functions exactly as intended, and exactly as desired by the uber-1%ters in positions of wealth and power.
The "system" intentionally sets up states against states, counties against counties, entitities against entities, people against people, neighbors against neighbors, class against class, faction against faction, men against women, rich against poor...
The "system" is intentional, perpetual, and is divide-and-rule.
It does exactly what it has intended to do for centuries: set up the default ingroups against the default outgroups, then then the elites/establishment rule over the division.
As George Carlin quipped: While everybody fights, they run off with all the money.
1
-
1
-
The entire USA/collective West is NATO, and they were "poking the bear" as collective effort. Now all these weak minds are scurrying around, trying to find somebody more guilty than themselves. An age-old blame game.
N ew
A tlanticist
T erritorial
O peration
The stick poking the bear...or as John Mearsheimer famously predicted, the "buck passers" setting up millions of people in the "favoured country" to "catch the buck" if the effort to encroach/encircle another state failed, so others bleed for the own expansive aims.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans.
- Caucasus region/Black Sea (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those being encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon.
This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their current subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
------------------------------------
The bigger picture can be distorted, and the strategy of divide-and-rule hidden behind narratives of benevolence...
For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented (de facto reality). For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
What lessons can we learn from the current mess in the Ukraine?
Lesson 1:
Don't become the "next Ukraine".
Lesson 2:
Don't forget "Lesson 1".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
October/November 1918.
Why did Wilhelm "have to go"...
In politics, we are hardly ever given the real reasons why things happen, or why policy decisions are implemented.
Of course yesterday's politics, is today's history...
The truth behind "why Wilhelm had to go" is there for all to see, and has been written about in great detail in the past.
It had little to do with WW1, or Wilhelm's "personality disorder" (lol).
As Tolkien states, long forgotten history became legend. Legend turned to myth. And after 100 years the reality of what happened passed out of all knowledge.
Re. why Wilhelm had to go, has simply been forgotten.
The reality of "what happened" is that soon after his ascent to power (around the time "leaning East" Bismarck took his hat), Wilhelm wanted to unite Europe.
In his own frustrated later words "with or without GB".
That can be read about in great detail and with sources in largely forgotton works: for example in the first few pages of THE ANGLO-GERMAN ALLIANCE NEGOTIATIONS: MISSED OPPORTUNITY OR MYTH by H.W. Koch (free to read online after registration at JSTOR) or several other free pdf theses on the topic.
Unfortunately most of these scholarly works mostly deal with how it turned out and not the initial intention by Berlin of such a potentially possible European alliance system with an Anglo-German Alliance at its core.
Only a few historians correctly point out how such an alliance system was never desired by key individual European players, especially in London, and therefore "wishful thinking" from the outset. See the "history" of the apparently "poor dissed London lords" who apparently "really really wanted to become Berlin's BFFs" (sic.), but Berlin had insiduous "world conquering dreams".
According to "Die Legende von der Verschmähten englischen Freundschaft 1898 to 1901" (1929) by Gerhard Ritter, the historian makes clear that it was London which never wanted such an alliance. The talks about a Eurpean alliance system did not "start" (as often stated) "in 1898", but much sooner. Bismarck had already sent the "feelers" much earlier, and Wilhelm intended to follow up on these (see the successful good start with the Helgoland-Zansibar Treaty as an act of good faith by both sides).
As it turned out "with GB" was not possible because London wanted "Splendid Isolation" as the elevated policy standpoint of a few influencial lords.
The "few" with veto powers would have used these powers to torpedo any attempt within the circle of London lords for any form of European unity, either "with or without GB".
To Quote: "Thirdly — but more contentiously — his veto of an Anglo-German alliance, as late as 1901, has been blamed, notably by Julian Amery in his biography of Joseph Chamberlain, as leading to the First World War and, by implication, to all the horrors which came after." (Amery 1969, p.158: edit for clarification, "third" in a list of the historian's list of key failures re. the Chamberlain Sr. years).
Just to clarify further. The same British lord who "oh-so honestly" set out try to create an Anglo-German Alliance in 1898 together with Lord Balfour, admitted to vetoing it if there was ever a chance of a version not to the lords' liking under discussion. Same as today, a few key figures can always veto any idea put forward, advocated on, or even decided on by majority concensus, and it did not matter how good such an idea (political proposition) is today, or was at the time.
It was GB which chose "against".
In 1896, Wilhelm II therefore "turned East" and personally handed the Russian Tzar a memorandum named "On the need to form a politico-merchantile union of European states against the USA".
In it, Wilhelm expressed his desire to turn Europe ("with or without GB", but still preferably including GB) into a united power which could stand up against the rapidly rising USA.
Hmmmmmmm....interesting.
"Against the USA" (sic.), and in 1918 Washington DC insisted on exactly this man to abdicate...
In 1918, Wilson representing the rapidly rising power USA, demanded that Wilhelm II should leave office in order for any peace talks to commence.
Of course, the "dividers" intent on "dividing" European power into manageable bits, sat in Washington DC. With their own entry into WW1, these strategists had got their "foot in the door" of European matters: their willing "little helpers" in London and Paris thereby signed the own death warrants for their own empires.
Because if you are a dragon (an imperialist power with an "empire"), don't cuddle up to a dragon slayer (a nation whose very foundation was anti-imperialism).
Wilhelm II had to go, because he wanted a united Europe, to mirror what was happening on the other side of the Atlantic.
It wasn't the "flamboyent Weltpolitic" or "nasty rhetoric" or "wanting to rule the world" (or any of the often overstated "historical details") which made Wilhelm unpopular with the other powers on the fringes of the European continent, but his desire to unite Europe in order to speak with a united voice against the rising USA. Germany's neighbors were unwilling to accept Berlin's "price tag" for such a "united Europe": more influence in the world (and a few more colonies) for Berlin.
Of course, everything has a "price tag".
Even the USA's "help" to "win WW1" had a price tag...
To add to the above.
Our history is often overburdened with judgements, rather than analyses.
A certain standpoint of "my government was better than your government"-attitude plays a large role.
The forms of governments which evolved (timeline) were a result of their geographical locations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can deny that it exists, because just like gravity, it cannot be seen.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like gravity, one can ignore that it exists, yet benefit from it at the same time.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like gravity exposes its own existence, by simple observation, anyone can observe the existence of divide and rule...
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like giant vacuum cleaners, it creates multiple systems on multiple levels, each with its own benefactors, and sucks of the hard labor from a base, and funnels it to the top.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that 99% of the participants who are involved, are blissfully unaware how they are actors in a game and can claim innocence while defending the systems at the same time.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can mask it behind innocuous policies, like meritocracy, and still claim to be doing the best politics possible.
The same way one can plausibly explain how one is a state of isolationism, yet be peculiarly in a state of constant interventionalism and war at the same time: invisible magic...***
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can plausibly deny its existance, yet constantly profit from it.
The cool thing about divide and rule, is that at the very top, the systems of empire, it creates a giant vacuum cleaner that funnels power to the top. "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. Within this framework the role of France, Germany and England of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations. . ."
The fruits of hard consistent invisible labor.
Divide and rule.
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world." Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire. - Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
The fruits of hard consistent unseen effects.
Divide and rule.
***With regards to Interventionalism: the USA was supposed to be Isolationist: John Quincy Adams delivered a speech in 1821 stating the USA's founding foreign policy of non-intervention and the US government's premise not to get entangled in or meddle in the affairs of another state. Adams issued the dire warning: Should America ever abandon her founding principle of non-interventionism, she would become "the dictatress of the world."
Just like Eisenhower issued a dire warning about Military Industrial Complexes, everybody knows how effective such warnings are.
The two-tier approach: get some people to say one thing, while others do the opposite...
Divide and rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The powerful have used the strategy of divide-and-rule for thousands of years to drive a wedge between peoples.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe noted back then: "Divide and rule, calls the politician; unite and lead, is the slogan of the wise."
Some politicians and rulers may do this innocently and without thinking, but most know exactly what they are doing with their divisive tongues and their line-drawing divisions. It is their most successful technique that allows them to rule over us by preventing greater unity among people. This allows them to skim off enormous wealth from the gross national product that actually belongs to all people. If it is important to you, forward this message to others. Unite with those you are ordered to hate, according to Goethe because this is the counter strategy of "the wise". We should not allow them to continue winning in the same way for the next thousand years.
Divide-and-rule.
Draw lines, then set the people up against each other.
If there is a problem, blame somebody else.
That is the historical Albion's way.
Incredible how many can be deceived for so long.
In the age of European imperialism before 1945 it was mainly the British- and French Empires which kept global conflicts alive by drawing lines in favor of one group over the other. Previously it had been the "fading" empires or the "sick men" of Europe, like Portugal, Spain, or the Ottoman Empire. Later they were joined by others, in a long list: the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Russia (only bordering regions), Belgium, Italy, the USA, etc. The lines were often randomly drawn through tribes, through religious- or ethnic groups, to favor either the one, then the other. This created volatile hot spots of ethnic conflicts to use as pretext for intervention and occupation as the moral "rule maker". After 1945 the USA simply took over as global hegemony, but practising the same strategy of rule and domination as all the others before: divide-and-rule.
------------------------------------------------------
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
SETTLER COLONIALISM
The last 500 years of European/white settler colonialism as a subsection of the divide-and-rule technique. The strategy was "farms/forts" of the stronger power and using "might is right" as guiding principle to a systemic, slow advance into the lands of ingenious peoples all over the world. Same happened in North America, Australia, New Zealand, the Levant, South America, Southern Africa, etc.
Broken promises, broken treaties, looking for excuses to make the next 'step' (ratchet principle). The only places the strategy of slow ponderous expansion failed was where the local systems were too numerous or organized (East Asia). The "template" might have various regional differences, but the end effect is always the same. Slow, step-by-step advance of the own ideology, economic systems, corporations and political power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zhou Wu Let's say I come to your house with a gun. Proclaim that "this is such a big house, you must therefore give me a room, because I have a god who says this room is mine". Of course, you MUST give it to me, because your house is big, and I've had a tough childhood...if you don't, YOU are the bad guy...
Then, I settle in, start changing everything, expecting you and the other people already living there to comply to my logic.
Of course, if you and the other original inhabitants of the house protest, I've got lotsa friends who have money and guns too, who see things exactly the same way I do...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zhou Wu So, while everybody is squabbling about what to, a lot of time has passed, and you find yourself outside a fence around the house you used to live in...
That smart "lawyer type" with his powerful friends, let's call him "Abel"...has simply managed to get the town council, the mayor, chief of police, and the local money elite on his side by sacrificing tons of "dough"...
Now they are all at the pool, having a party, while you're at the fence.
It seems as if "Abel" has simply planned ahead better, and his ass-kissing tactics of sucking up to "the powers that be", have been more successful than you. You apparrently didn't sacrifice enough "dough" to the "gods" who ruled the world...
Strange philosophy.
Strange, strange...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For the British Empire, commencing roughly the year 1900, every "victory" was in fact a nail in the own coffin.
The following essay will explain how first London, and then Washington DC used mainly divide and rule/conquer strategies at key watershed moments throughout history in order to effect world domination, mainly facilitated by a geographical advantage. Unlike conventional wisdom suggests, such policies were not only implemented in overseas territories and colonies, but were indeed also used against the continental European powers, within the limitations of the power balance at any given time in history. In order to first become and then later stay the world hegemon, distance coupled with a financial and technological edge, were converted into political means (policies) by London power players. Up to the early-20th century, these realities gave London that slight edge over their continental rivals which were already divided due to a variety of reasons. As time progressed and war ravaged Europe in the first half of the 20th century, technology advanced further, so that the geographical advantage once enjoyed by London, passed over to the USA and Washington DC's power players. After World War 2 the multipolar world up to the 19th century turned bipolar, then unipolar as the Cold War ended or the systems morphed.
Historically, European conflicts between systems based on structurally similar dynasties, turned into a struggle between ideologically different systems. Rather than the previous limited wars up to the early-20th century, wars then became total. The different systems tended to strive to overpower, marginalize, integrate or destroy other conflicting systems if symbioses was not possible. The key to success here, and the novelty of the theory presented, was that the core means employed were strategies resembling divide and rule/conquer. The systems which had the geographical advantage, either allied with, beguiled, befriended or otherwise favored other systems if useful for own gain. What set these loose alliances of friendships or ententes apart from other systems which also united, was a lack of obligation to react in any specific way during times of crises or wars. The distinct advantage of geography being that those with such a competitive advantage would not have to fear an existencial threat to the own systems and could be more bold in international relations, or delaying actions in crises or wars until a favorable point on the timeline, based on the technological standpoint humanity had reached at the point in time.
Such divide and rule strategies were in fact standing London policies, disguised by careful use of language in policies. Since the logic of balanced powers to avoid great wars was widely accepted within the framework of the Concert of Europe, no other capital city seemed to have noticed or objected. Rather than aiding relative peace, which persisted in most of Europe for around a century after 1815, London's policy standpoint as sole "balancer of powers", resulted in an ever greater risk of a total war of the systems. At the core of Europe, these older continental European systems grew in extent and power in the leadup to 1914, under constant stress in efforts to balance power due to the fact that land borders resulted in more exposure to danger from a neighboring system: placing continental powers in a situation of a relative geographical disadvantage while engaging in crises or wars. While London could always find a power to temporarily ally with on the continent, the reverse was not possible (on Britain), because the UK had achieved an early unification process. The "decider" would always be London. Continental powers therefore faced the geographically disadvantageous locations with regards to expansive aims. This was directly opposed to faraway systems which had the geographical advantage of distance from this core of the Old World. Few seemed to have noticed the potential for MAD as time passed. Due to her geographical advantage, and at London's sole discretion, the "balancer" London stood aloof. The technological standpoint at the time meant she was detached from all danger to the own heartland which was England. A role which was guarded by the Royal Navy. London was the "sole divider and sole decider of wars". That eventually lead to the unintentional end of European world rule and domination, including their own. It was a careful use of language which meant that most of the above did not need to be kept hidden, but the words used indeed reveal a standing policy of "divide et impera". In fact, most of it happened out in the open, in newspaper articles, treaties, conferences, political summits, etc. and for all current witnesses to observe and study because just like today, it is possible to drive multiple policies in parallel. Most observers simply did not recognize the events for what they were, or they noticed and considered the status quo as a meritocracy or a well-deserved own right, or they did not pay attention. Distinct systems with many similarities and many differences employing strategies as a way to achieve greater gain for the own system.
The theory comes in two parts, that of 1) divide and rule, in which case the dividing power is actually in a position to exploit an imbalance in power, to impose a ruling on another side by ensuring the continued rift between opposing systems, and the more common 2) divide and gain, where the power intent on creating an advantage for its own system, has to suffice with splitting potential unity in the making apart, but lacks sufficient power to impose a ruling.
Divide and rule/conquer is revealed by events.
Unlike human beings, events don't lie, steal, or kill.
Unlike human beings, events which are proven to have happened, and are not disputed to have occured, do not deceive, manipulate, or "tweak" the own perceived "truths" in order to generate positive feelings in a flurry of "99% ancillary details", which then distorts vision...
1
-
1
-
@ChrisCrossClash Do you understand how simple it is to implement a "divide and rule"-strategy?
From a position of power, pick a favorite or two...
As simple as that.
*If you wish to know who the biggest "losers" of history were, because they fell for the "divide and rule"-strategy of a bigger power, then please go to the comments section under the "His--tory Ro..om " educational channel on "Wilhelm II" (documentary) and choose "latest comments first" (three little bars at the top of each comments section).
Great Britain and France did not "win" from the "divide and rule/conquer" system they had tried to set up in Europe, and the British Empire did not gain by the own London policy standpoint of making the strongest continental power their "default rival/enemy" system.
Britons and French (average citizens) also lost BIG TIME.
Of course, no superficially observed series of events can be concluded to be a non-falsifiable theory, if there is not a substantial amount of evidence to corroborate it, and if the reader wishes, that video cmments section has more than 100 essays going back more than 4 years, to provide more than ample evidence for the theory of how Europeans were 1) once "divided and ruled" over (after around 1900), and 2) are still being divided and ruled over (around the year 2000), by outside powers.
Please go there...or not.
Personally, whether you go there and read the essays there, or don't because you think it is too much to read, it doesn't matter to me.
1
-
1
-
AVOID THE EQUILLIBRIUM
That is the sole aim of the "affairs of the city" which is per definition the system of politics.
-----------
Divide and conquer works because not everyone involved knows that they are taking on a role in a power game. That's how the strategy works. Very few people really need to understand it. In English, the principle is called "Useful Innocent/Useful Idiot." From a position of power, you can animate people (usually through money, or ideology) who play a role, but they know not what they do.
The peoples in your "neck o' the woods," have been ruled by division since the beginning.
Because it's easier to divide people based on personal differences than to unite them based on their similarities. Strategically ambivalent elites use this to their own advantage. Now the intention is simply to avoid the unity in your society, in order to "rule" over the dissenters, which is the classic "divide and conquer" principle. This strategy is kept under wraps, due to a systemic desire to be "good", and on the "right side of history", and therefore overemphasizing the actions of philanthropists, political doves, peace activists, religious leaders, etc.
At the same time the activities of political hawks sowing divisions are downplayed, relativized, apologized for, mostly by politicians and strategists as the "story tellers" of history. But also by commoners, who simply parrot the stories without thinking them through, and who are NOT privy to the overall strategy (divide-and-rule in all its intricacies and nuances).
The main interest of these people for which we have been fighting wars for centuries has been the relationships between organized systems of finance and power, and systems of resources and manpower. Because united they are the only power that could threaten this group. They must make sure that the unity of others does not happen. ... For these elites ... the greatest fear is an overall creation of a unity of technology, capital and natural resources, and labor, as the only combination that has frightened the elites for centuries. So how does this play out? Well, they have already put their cards on the tilted table. They draw their invisible lines onto society.
Today all our so-called "leaders" are too weak to create systemic unity, to avoid their "friends" simply drawing lines all over the place, which they cower down to and must obey.
Like a ratchet, one click at a time, the "marching empire." Endless wars, constant disagreements, using imperialism to stay on top. Using "levers" of lies and distrust, via power players. Creating favorites: favoring the proxies who bow down and sacrifice themselves for the mastah. Pointing fingers, everywhere else, using the POWER of the mainstream media.
Divide-and-rule/conquer.
The oldest trick in the book...
Who has the POWER? Who has always had the GEOPOSITIONAL advantage of power to rule? The GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all other "buck catchers" (tools and other instruments of POWER in the Roman era style), but could not be reached themselves at any point in a historical timeline due to a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic- or political advantage?
“Divide-and-rule/conquer” as a standard strategy of power and thus the cause of nearly all conflicts in the world connects the dots on the timeline of history. Being far from the events resulting from their own meddling and political activities and being able to reach all other regions, but could not be reached themselves.
All they want is peace, they say. Who gathers the pieces of the great wealth and systemic gains when everyone else has failed to unite?
Different terms. Different eras. Same games...
The opposition that wants unity and equillibrium in a region is the "bad guy."
We, who seek true peace and harmony, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized.
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D chess." Everything you know is a variation of reality. They are playing 5D chess with the minds of 2D checkers players, within the compartmentalized brains of people who think they are smart.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelgottsman3767 What connects the topic of this video, as "compartmentalized history" and 99% ancillary details, with the bigger overall European "picture"?
It is "divide and rule" as THE "systems/strategies" tier of things, as the 1% of history that counts...
Exemplary of a divide and rule/conquer strategy:
Entire regions of human beings are used or set up as proxies, as "walls" or "Limitrophe States" to seperate potential areas which might unite.
Wiki: "In modern history, it was used to refer to provinces that seceded from the Russian Empire at the end of World War I, during the Russian Civil War (1917–1922), thus forming a kind of belt or cordon sanitaire separating Soviet Russia from the rest of Europe during the interwar period.[4]... The nations were then "the cards to change hands in big political games" and included the Baltic peoples, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians."
These nations were, and still are today, simply "tools" for the empires who hold the geographical advantage of power
When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think*** today.
Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer of and over continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers.
These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology).
Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.
The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group. As for Wilson, was he really that naive to think that the large and prominent forces of isolationism would not prevail, and lead to the USA/Washington DC not joining any collectivised system of security for the entire planet?
Was there really no "Plan B" in Washington DC?
Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
The "oh so fine" British Lordships thought they could play divide and rule/conquer games with the world, and in the end British citizens and military men lost bigtime, as at the very end of the Empire, their own Lordships "...ran off with all the f%cking money..." (quote = George Carlin/ reality = tax havens).
The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely.
No, this is not a "yet another conspiracy theory," but elaborated and provided with sufficient evidence, and inductive/deductive reasoning on the other channel/video.
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
**As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the *systems/strategies tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics.
The real question that should be asked, and therefore the premise of any debate is: Was it wise at the time?
To which the simple answer is "no".
They ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/grand strategy, and lost their Empire....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, it won't be the first time in history that Europe's strongest nation was made "the enemy" as default setting by a few "lords", even though at a time (all throughout the mid-19th century, right up to 1880s) when most leaders, business partnerships, and common folks got along just fine...
[From Britannica...."Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."]
The truth of course, that an own policy determined that no geopolitical form of co-operation with Germany was possible as secretly decided in London.
Policy?
The strongest nation is the enemy/rival.
Some things never change...
1
-
FAUX liberal empires, who can read past statements made by their leaders, and which were actually implemented reveal their own true nature.
To gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves (and then stand in their "shiny houses on hills" claiming everybody else is either jealous or greedy). If not by direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony. Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources. That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only IR (international Relations). Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region. In other word, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
1
-
1
-
Are you a citizen of the world, and wish to contribute a small share to end the grip the global elites have on the narrative of history?
Are you American, or European? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from the multitude of military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any platform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Why do we know this? Because good people have been voting, and posting, and debating, and using their freedom of speech, and protesting for hundreds of years, but the grip the elites have on the plebs has NEVER changed.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unraveling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting all international big brands.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small local companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever and whenever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone," or "but, but, but...your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be perfect...
Methodology: JDI and make it a long term lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk trend, because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate interests. Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small local companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Do you wish to fight meddling globalist empires?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influential GLOBAL ELITES only REALLY start "caring" (sic.) when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
In politics, we are hardly ever given the real reasons why things happen, or why policy decisions are implemented.
Of course yesterday's politics, is today's history...
The truth behind "why Wilhelm had to go" is there for all to see, and has been written about in great detail in the past.
It had little to do with WW1, or Wilhelm's "personality disorder" (lol).
As Tolkien states, long forgotten history became legend. Legend turned to myth. And after 100 years the reality of what happened passed out of all knowledge.
Re. why Wilhelm had to go, has simply been forgotten.
The reality of "what happened" is that soon after his ascent to power (around the time "leaning East" Bismarck took his hat), Wilhelm wanted to unite Europe.
In his own frustrated later words "with or without GB".
That can be read about in great detail and with sources in largely forgotton works: for example in the first few pages of THE ANGLO-GERMAN ALLIANCE NEGOTIATIONS: MISSED OPPORTUNITY OR MYTH by H.W. Koch (free to read online after registration at JSTOR) or several other free pdf theses on the topic.
Unfortunately most of these scholarly works mostly deal with how it turned out and not the initial intention by Berlin of such a potentially possible European alliance system with an Anglo-German Alliance at its core.
Only a few historians correctly point out how such an alliance system was never desired by key individual European players, especially in London, and therefore "wishful thinking" from the outset. See the "history" of the apparently "poor dissed London lords" who apparently "really really wanted to become Berlin's BFFs" (sic.), but Berlin had insiduous "world conquering dreams".
According to "Die Legende von der Verschmähten englischen Freundschaft 1898 to 1901" (1929) by Gerhard Ritter, the historian makes clear that it was London which never wanted such an alliance. The talks about a Eurpean alliance system did not "start" (as often stated) "in 1898", but much sooner. Bismarck had already sent the "feelers" much earlier, and Wilhelm intended to follow up on these (see the successful good start with the Helgoland-Zansibar Treaty as an act of good faith by both sides).
As it turned out "with GB" was not possible because London wanted "Splendid Isolation" as the elevated policy standpoint of a few influencial lords.
The "few" with veto powers would have used these powers to torpedo any attempt within the circle of London lords for any form of European unity, either "with or without GB".
To Quote: "Thirdly — but more contentiously — his veto of an Anglo-German alliance, as late as 1901, has been blamed, notably by Julian Amery in his biography of Joseph Chamberlain, as leading to the First World War and, by implication, to all the horrors which came after." (Amery 1969, p.158: edit for clarification, "third" in a list of the historian's list of key failures re. the Chamberlain Sr. years).
Just to clarify further. The same British lord who "oh-so honestly" set out try to create an Anglo-German Alliance in 1898 together with Lord Balfour, admitted to vetoing it if there was ever a chance of a version not to the lords' liking under discussion. Same as today, a few key figures can always veto any idea put forward, advocated on, or even decided on by majority concensus, and it did not matter how good such an idea (political proposition) is today, or was at the time.
It was GB which chose "against".
In 1896, Wilhelm II therefore "turned East" and personally handed the Russian Tzar a memorandum named "On the need to form a politico-merchantile union of European states against the USA".
In it, Wilhelm expressed his desire to turn Europe ("with or without GB", but still preferably including GB) into a united power which could stand up against the rapidly rising USA.
Hmmmmmmm....interesting.
"Against the USA" (sic.), and in 1918 Washington DC insisted on exactly this man to abdicate...
In 1918, Wilson representing the rapidly rising power USA, demanded that Wilhelm II should leave office in order for any peace talks to commence.
Of course, the "dividers" intent on "dividing" European power into manageable bits, sat in Washington DC. With their own entry into WW1, these strategists had got their "foot in the door" of European matters: their willing "little helpers" in London and Paris thereby signed the own death warrants for their own empires.
Because if you are a dragon (an imperialist power with an "empire"), don't cuddle up to a dragon slayer (a nation whose very foundation was anti-imperialism).
Wilhelm II had to go, because he wanted a united Europe, to mirror what was happening on the other side of the Atlantic.
It wasn't the "flamboyent Weltpolitic" or "nasty rhetoric" or "wanting to rule the world" (or any of the often overstated "historical details") which made Wilhelm unpopular with the other powers on the fringes of the European continent, but his desire to unite Europe in order to speak with a united voice against the rising USA. Germany's neighbors were unwilling to accept Berlin's "price tag" for such a "united Europe": more influence in the world (and a few more colonies) for Berlin.
Of course, everything has a "price tag".
Even the USA's "help" to "win WW1" had a price tag...
To add to the above.
Our history is often overburdened with judgements, rather than analyses.
A certain standpoint of "my government was better than your government"-attitude plays a large role.
The forms of governments which evolved (timeline) were a result of their geographical locations.
Today the European Union (EU) is per definition "a politico-economic union of 28 member states that are located primarily in Europe".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lots of appeals to emotion in the comments section.
Weak arguments for weak minds.
With Lubeck, Rostock, Dresden, Darmstadt, Wurzburg, and other over the top actions to appease the "revenge/reap as you sow/whirlwind"-slogan chanters, European states/empires as powers in a multipolar world which had dominated world affairs till then, was destroyed.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? LOL...
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries.
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
Sad...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cannypedant8877 Marines went to try a sneak into another world, to steal someting valuable, and by lies and deceit...
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes about the history of the ME:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster
Just like in the movie, we invaded THEIR world without asking them.
Comments welcome....
1
-
1
-
Yes, correct.
On the Western front Germany followed "rules" more than in the east, which Nazis considered a "struggle of the races".
Not in the west though.
A few atrocities aside, it was "pretty civilized" as far as wars went.
That is also why the LW didn't send out a 1,000 bombers, every night, to "area bomb" British cities.
Note, at a time (late summer 1940) that there would have been very little the RAF could've done to stop it: few night fighters, or effective AI radar, or radar protecting GB (note: Chain Home pointed outwards, not inwards).
1
-
1
-
@OleLeik No, bombing airfields, yards, and factories was policy and LW doctrine in 1940.
See also "X- and Y- bombing aiming devices".
In 1940, if there had been a policy of "flattening British cities", the LW could have done it.
That was because of geography.
A German medium bomber could take off and bomb London or any SE English city twice in a night, meaning that geography gave the LW this advantage after France fell.
Increasing the production of cheap incendiary devices was also not the issue, and could also have been done, had it been the policy.
During the initial stages (July thru to September) of the BoB the LW did not chose targets "because they burned well".
They chose airfields, factories, the London docks, etc.
Even during the night attacks, these were the intended targets.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OleLeik Yes, and with that February 1942 decision, they bombed themselves into extinction.
London did, by own choice.
They should have taken up the American proposition to focus on a few key industries.
Because why?
Because at the core, German production was not limited by the bombing, but by a lack of raw materials in the Nazi sphere of influence (continental Europe, which lacked key resources, especially oil for mobile warfare).
Strategic bombing with four engined heavies is 5 times more wasteful on own resources than waging war with twin engined aircraft.
A Mosquito could extract the same amount of real and effective damage to the Axis war industry, than a Lanc, but 5 times "cheaper" (if you wish to use that term).
[Hint, I've already placed a few dozen comments about the cost of the RAF decision to "flatten Germany", in this comment section. The "cost" was called "Empire", and the Brits paid the price after WW2. Please read it there.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It all started off soooo gweat...
That "Hollywood movie Band of Brothers"-stuff.
Everyone speaking English.
The good guys becoming "best fwiends", forever and ever.
Cross my heart and hope to die...sniff, sniff...so cute.
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Aww.
So sad.
Too bad.
Lost their impure empire, and then some...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen almost all their markets.
Yup. A very "special"...ahem..."relationship".
American Century: "Sowwie. I didden know that MARKETS and TRADE were the cornerstone of your Empire...je, je, je..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kazekoge101 The most potent strategy is "divide and rule." It gives millions of people the impression that they are struggling for an own cause, while actually fighting for the cause of a higher power, with more sway.
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interverence at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
§§§footnote
The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA is a casino masquerading as a country.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries so that any economic surplus generated by that country is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US government, and especially to US bondholders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is the dollar tributary of the weaker economies, and junior partners, being vacuumed off in order to please the controlling master.
"The USA is not wise enough to rule the world, we shall merely own the world." - George Washington (attr.)
Such warnings are, as mostly or mainly, ignored.
For those who challenge these systems and maintain their "princes" (Machiavelli/gatekeepers), citizens are perpetually at risk of being portrayed as the collective "villains" of history according to the US MIMAC-constructed BLACK LEGEND. The United States purports to act as a neutral third party, yet it is, in fact, the primary instigator of crises and conflicts where its "interests prevail." Historical evidence, such as the Nye Commission of the 1930s, illustrates that Washington DC has consistently been an aggressive actor, perpetually seeking proxies (favoritism as a strategy of divide-and-rule/conquer) to execute long-standing objectives aimed at subjugating other nations and transforming them into "dollar tributaries," or, if that is unfeasible, to fragment global regions. Terms such as balkanize, fragmentation, delineating borders, "our allies fighting for freedom," puppet regimes, and corporate interests consistently reflect a strategy of divide-and-rule, masked by the narratives of those who perceive themselves as innocent doves, believing they are a benevolent empire "always assisting the virtuous and the weak and oppressed."
Presently, Russia is viewed as the pariah for the "future carving knives," and the future BLACK LEGEND is being written right now as you're watching on, by employing a repertoire of US tactics and schemes that can be analyzed since 1776.
Ask the First Nations or Mexico and look at the strategy employed on them: it was the policy of divide-and-rule/conquer, and it remains persistent.
--------------------------------
MIMAC = Military Industrial Media Academic Congressional complex.
1
-
1
-
@bluemarlin8138 "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003. Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
That's economic warfare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The so-called "Schlieffen Plan" was a contingency plan which was devised, and which cristalized out of several pre-war war games re. potential "what ifs" faced by Germany and her alliance partner Austria-Hungary.
It would be "triggered", in case certain criteria are met. A fact which is not clear if Wilhelm truly understood.
Note, it came about as a result (causal effect) of other nations' leaders decisions.
That is how "causality" works.
At first, devised in 1905, after it became clear that 1) France and Russia could not be convinced to give up on their policy of encirclement (see the failure of the Treaty of Bjorko), nor coerced into abondoning their alliances aimed at Berlin/Germany/Triple Alliance (see the Agadir crises).
The final step towards it becoming the only German war contingency plan, was in 1913, when it became clear that London would also not abandon its position of being the "balancer of powers/decider of wars" on the continent (after The Haldane mission), Attempts by Berlin to achieve this, were basically given up, and faced with the situation of "three enemies in war, right or wrong", all other contingency plans were shelved.
Re. the act of "encircling others", often brushed off as "nonsense", and "snowflake outrage", I suggest referring to our beloved Bible. "Do not do onto others, as one does not wish to be done onto".
Would you like to be encircled? Well...don't do it to others.
The age-old wisdom of "practicing as one preaches", does not apply to our dear leaders, as they set up the world for failure...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The REAL aim is China.
Russia, eventually "carved up" into smaller pieces and turned into future minions, is simply the means to an end.
Korea, Vietnam, Ukraine...
Will the little minions ("buck catchers" in strategy) ever learn?
Those who eagerly "carve up" others, even along arbitrary human-made boundaries on a map, dividing individuals, organisations, families, and businesses, are unlikely to agree with being "carved up" by someone else.
Korea was divided by imperialists during World War II (with the cooperation of the imperialist Allied camp) without consulting the local population about their priorities.
A few years later, they attempted the same in Vietnam, using the ongoing war of independence as a pretext (marketed as "the USA saving the world from communism"). This effort was unsuccessful.
The true objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China
According to Wikipedia: "Main article: China containment policy. As articulated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-term strategic initiative to encircle Beijing with the USSR and its satellite states, as well as: The Japan–Korea front, The India–Pakistan front, and The Southeast Asia front. Although President Johnson claimed that the goal of the Vietnam War was to ensure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a memorandum from January 1965 by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton indicated that an underlying justification was "not to assist a friend, but to contain China". On November 3, 1965, Secretary of Defense McNamara sent a memorandum to Johnson, outlining "major policy decisions regarding our course of action in Vietnam". The memorandum begins by revealing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965: 'The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they support a long-term United States policy to contain China. McNamara accused China of having imperial ambitions similar to those of the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States: 'China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30s, and like the USSR in 1947—emerges as a significant power threatening to undermine our importance and effectiveness globally and, more distantly but more ominously, to unite all of Asia against us.'
Note that this is a common tactic in international relations: accuse the "other side" of actions that one is undertaking oneself. The strategy of divide-and-rule is kept hidden, while the opposing side is accused of having malicious intentions, without providing any actual evidence (the concept of "accusation without proof"). To encircle China, the United States aimed to establish "three fronts" as part of a "long-term effort to contain China": 'There are three fronts to a long-term effort to contain China (recognising that the USSR "contains" China to the north and northwest): (a) the Japan–Korea front; (b) the India–Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.'
Later, McNamara acknowledged that containing China would ultimately cost America a considerable amount of time, money, and lives. As is often the case, "extending" a rising rival power incurs "expenses", including lives, which is why the intention is to create proxies in artificial entities like "South Vietnam" to carry out such containment for the dominant power.
This is divide-and-rule.
Favouritism, or the "paid/supported proxy", can be employed during peacetime to undermine rivals or wage subversive warfare, or during wartime to reduce costs and losses while gaining systemic advantages after a "victory". When a proxy fails to achieve this "extension of the rival", it is quickly abandoned or discarded to cut the "investment", and a new proxy is sought. This pattern was evident in the 1930s: in 1939, the "first proxy" identified was Poland, and when Poland failed to "extend Germany" for a prolonged period, it was decided to provoke either Germany or the USSR to invade Scandinavia (Plan R4). Ideally, both Germany and the SU would invade Scandinavia, leading to a potential clash there, distracting attacks away from the heartlands. While Great Britain and France still cooperated, this was straightforward: both would benefit if the war "pivoted away" from Western Europe/British Isles into Scandinavia. If the attention could be focused somewhere else on the map, a Battle of Britain and a Battle of France could potentially be avoided, if the Germans became bogged down in Scandinavia for example...
That did not occur.
However.
Align with such individuals at your own risk.
They do not adhere to the Christian values they consistently boast as being "oh-so-superior" and worthy of admiration...
North Korea/South Korea (implemented "unsinkable aircraft carrier").
North Vietnam/South Vietnam (intention/failure).
East Ukraine/West Ukraine (in progress).
Always the same playbook.
The modus operandi has been consistent since 1776: advancing onto another power's borders (systematically), also through proxies, then blaming those who are encroached upon/encircled if they react, or blaming the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War advance began in the 1990s, so even if the Trump administration did not initiate the "marching order", it is a fact that he did not halt it either when he had the chance during his first term (2017-2021). This can be examined as empirical evidence (observation/map) which clarifies who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should avoid engaging with debaters who base their theories on ideology or emotions, especially not if the advocate reveals themselves as dogmatic, prone to logical fallacies or cognitive biases. Such individuals are not interested in outcomes but wish to make "debates" go in circles indefinitely, obfuscating, side-lining, and finger-pointing to evade the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current trajectory of the empire, which began when the USSR faced economic decline in the late 1980s, with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the advance)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the advance)
Continuously advance, trampling over one red line after another, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). If anything negative occurs, and lives are lost, always blame someone else. This type of imperialist behaviour, as demonstrated by Washington DC and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not begin solely after World War II. This marching order has been in place since 1776, with the first victims being neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territories were coveted. That was followed by Spain in the 1890s (put into action in 1898) whose desirable territories would create a link between the USA and East Asia.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries so that any economic surplus generated by that country is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US government, and especially to US bondholders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It remains the same today as it has since 1776.
The reality is that neither Trump nor any previous administration has halted this (systemic) "slow march" of systemic expansion, whilst getting the "buck catcher" to pick up the tab if things don't turn out as strategized.
Be cautious of the ideologically indoctrinated: Like a child, they confidently repeat things they do not know to be true.
The "three frontlines" mentioned in grand strategy, to encroach and encircle a rival power, is history rhyming after 1900 and after 2000.
Around the year 1900, the "three frontlines" in times of peace were:
- eastern frontline (Russia, with France 1891-1894)
- western frontline (France, with Russia or the "2-front war danger" for the multi-lingual/multi-ethnic "encircled", 1891 - 1894)
- the North Sea and global oceans (1907, as the British Empire aligned with the encirclers)
USA: on the "fence", just "eating popcorn"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The concept of an "occupation" seems to be hard to grasp.
The landgrabs after the 6-Day War were illegal according to international law. Waging a "preventive war" or a "war of choice" was not illegal, but all the subsequent landgrabs were.
According to international law, these territories are therefore still "occupied".
" ...We had three wars which we fought without an alternative. The first, the war of independence, which began on Nov. 30, 1947 and lasted until January 1949 ...The second war of no alternative was the Yom Kippur War and the war of attrition that preceded it ... Our other wars were not without an alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice ... In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation." -- Menachem Begin, Aug. 8, 1982, Israeli National Defense College
Begin stated clearly that Israel had fought three wars before which it had a "choice," meaning Israel started the wars. In legal terms, this is known as "preventive war," which is not illegal. However, taking land against international law after such a war, is illegal. Note that fluffy language like "in the noblest sense of the word," highlighted above, is not a legal term but gangsta talk.
Israel is still the occupying power.
That is what the law states. One can whine about laws, but that doesn't change a law. Everything one can come up with in defense of Israel, will automatically mean apologia for the occupying force. Everything one states, either ignores or apologizes for the stronger side in a conflict, which is enforcing an illegal occupation.
Every conversation which does not stress the fact that one side is the occupier, the other side the resistance, is biased towards imperialism.
Every news report must start with explaining who the occupation power is, so as not to confuse the timeline.
1
-
@indy_go_blue60 GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs.
Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent.
Of course, London already knew this.
That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem:
Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900).
And so "poor little Belgium" was born.
Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"...
France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war.
The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about-turn Jedi mind-control trick on weak minds :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first.
Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals.
It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up.
Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights".
It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thevillaaston7811 Yes.
Your "best fwiends" over on the other side of the Atlantic, far far away from the action...in no danger whatsoever...and the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and cute "Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world works...
Ever wonder why the "best friends" over in the New World didn't sail in like heroes to help out in 1939 or 1940?
Because during WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
The USA said to the rest of the world, including "good friends", you shall not have nuclear weapons!
https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/british-nuclear-program
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
@TheVilla Aston Cash, cash, cash....for the coffers of the American Century...
https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-american-century-what-was-really-behind-it
Thanks GB.
You not only practically financed the development of our nukes, costing around 2 billion dollars, you also gave us your scientists to help the US develop them...
Thanks "best fwiends" :-)
That is some weird "special relationship" if you ask me.
A "friend" who does not even want you to have nukes, if he has some himself?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thevillaaston7811 Looks like I'll have to answer my own question again...
They didn't because there was nothing "in it" for Washington D.C.
Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up power" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
Of course "not enough nukes", or "there are just tooooo many of them Winnie", and "it's soooooo risky, my fwiends" were made.
A fool, is one who cannot distinguish between "excuses" and "ulterior motives"...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
Stalin: "I figured out Washington isn't going to support you in your efforts to restore the post-WW1 Balance of Power, so I changed my mind about the Percentages Agreement we made. Here's Greece, now eff off and I'll take the rest 100%. Whadda ya gonna do about it?"
Churchill: "...but, but, but...you pwomised..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thevillaaston7811 British and French leaders went to Versailles under the rather childish illusion that the SU and Germany would stay weak forever and ever and ever....
They ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany, or alienating France was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Not hindsight, but a lack of foresight (aka "short-sightedness")
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir had slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
So sad...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Geopolitics links what she states here, to the big picture.
There is a fracture zone between the big global players (USA/EU, Russia, China) running from the North Pole, through the Baltic States, Poland and Ukraine, via the Caucasus, Iran, and towards Israel. Another fracture zone is the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa (incl. Israel), from there through India, SE Asia (incl. Vietnam), through Taiwan, the Koreas, Japan, Taiwan, back up to the North Pole.
Expect Washington DC, either in collaboration with a NATO state, or tacidly nodded off by the EU, to instigate crises and wars EVERYWHERE on these "fracture zones," because it is the only way they can hang on the the good ol' days a bit longer: their role of the hegemon of the world, and that of the American Century.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are you a citizen of the world, and wish to contribute a small share to end the grip the global elites have on the narrative of history?
Are you American, or European? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from the multitude of military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any platform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Why do we know this? Because good people have been voting, and posting, and debating, and using their freedom of speech, and protesting for hundreds of years, but the grip the elites have on the plebs has NEVER changed.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unraveling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting all international big brands.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small local companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever and whenever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone," or "but, but, but...your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be perfect...
Methodology: JDI and make it a long term lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk trend, because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate interests. Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small local companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Do you wish to fight meddling globalist empires?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influential GLOBAL ELITES only REALLY start "caring" (sic.) when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics.
The real question that should be asked, and therefore the premise of any debate is: Was it wise at the time?
To which the simple answer is "no".
They ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
@t
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Could say the same for GB.
October/November 1918.
Why did Wilhelm "have to go"...
In politics, we are hardly ever given the real reasons why things happen, or why policy decisions are implemented.
Of course yesterday's politics, is today's history...
The truth behind "why Wilhelm had to go" is there for all to see, and has been written about in great detail in the past.
It had little to do with WW1, or Wilhelm's "personality disorder" (lol).
As Tolkien states, long forgotten history became legend. Legend turned to myth. And after 100 years the reality of what happened passed out of all knowledge.
Re. why Wilhelm had to go, has simply been forgotten.
The reality of "what happened" is that soon after his ascent to power (around the time "leaning East" Bismarck took his hat), Wilhelm wanted to unite Europe.
In his own frustrated later words "with or without GB".
That can be read about in great detail and with sources in largely forgotton works: for example in the first few pages of THE ANGLO-GERMAN ALLIANCE NEGOTIATIONS: MISSED OPPORTUNITY OR MYTH by H.W. Koch (free to read online after registration at JSTOR) or several other free pdf theses on the topic.
Unfortunately most of these scholarly works mostly deal with how it turned out and not the initial intention by Berlin of such a potentially possible European alliance system with an Anglo-German Alliance at its core.
Only a few historians correctly point out how such an alliance system was never desired by key individual European players, especially in London, and therefore "wishful thinking" from the outset. See the "history" of the apparently "poor dissed London lords" who apparently "really really wanted to become Berlin's BFFs" (sic.), but Berlin had insiduous "world conquering dreams".
According to "Die Legende von der Verschmähten englischen Freundschaft 1898 to 1901" (1929) by Gerhard Ritter, the historian makes clear that it was London which never wanted such an alliance. The talks about a Eurpean alliance system did not "start" (as often stated) "in 1898", but much sooner. Bismarck had already sent the "feelers" much earlier, and Wilhelm intended to follow up on these (see the successful good start with the Helgoland-Zansibar Treaty as an act of good faith by both sides).
As it turned out "with GB" was not possible because London wanted "Splendid Isolation" as the elevated policy standpoint of a few influencial lords.
The "few" with veto powers would have used these powers to torpedo any attempt within the circle of London lords for any form of European unity, either "with or without GB".
To Quote: "Thirdly — but more contentiously — his veto of an Anglo-German alliance, as late as 1901, has been blamed, notably by Julian Amery in his biography of Joseph Chamberlain, as leading to the First World War and, by implication, to all the horrors which came after." (Amery 1969, p.158: edit for clarification, "third" in a list of the historian's list of key failures re. the Chamberlain Sr. years).
Just to clarify further. The same British lord who "oh-so honestly" set out try to create an Anglo-German Alliance in 1898 together with Lord Balfour, admitted to vetoing it if there was ever a chance of a version not to the lords' liking under discussion. Same as today, a few key figures can always veto any idea put forward, advocated on, or even decided on by majority concensus, and it did not matter how good such an idea (political proposition) is today, or was at the time.
It was GB which chose "against".
In 1896, Wilhelm II therefore "turned East" and personally handed the Russian Tzar a memorandum named "On the need to form a politico-merchantile union of European states against the USA".
In it, Wilhelm expressed his desire to turn Europe ("with or without GB", but still preferably including GB) into a united power which could stand up against the rapidly rising USA.
Hmmmmmmm....interesting.
"Against the USA" (sic.), and in 1918 Washington DC insisted on exactly this man to abdicate...
In 1918, Wilson representing the rapidly rising power USA, demanded that Wilhelm II should leave office in order for any peace talks to commence.
Of course, the "dividers" intent on "dividing" European power into manageable bits, sat in Washington DC. With their own entry into WW1, these strategists had got their "foot in the door" of European matters: their willing "little helpers" in London and Paris thereby signed the own death warrants for their own empires.
Because if you are a dragon (an imperialist power with an "empire"), don't cuddle up to a dragon slayer (a nation whose very foundation was anti-imperialism).
Wilhelm II had to go, because he wanted a united Europe, to mirror what was happening on the other side of the Atlantic.
It wasn't the "flamboyent Weltpolitic" or "nasty rhetoric" or "wanting to rule the world" (or any of the often overstated "historical details") which made Wilhelm unpopular with the other powers on the fringes of the European continent, but his desire to unite Europe in order to speak with a united voice against the rising USA. Germany's neighbors were unwilling to accept Berlin's "price tag" for such a "united Europe": more influence in the world (and a few more colonies) for Berlin.
Of course, everything has a "price tag".
Even the USA's "help" to "win WW1" had a price tag...
To add to the above.
Our history is often overburdened with judgements, rather than analyses.
A certain standpoint of "my government was better than your government"-attitude plays a large role.
The forms of governments which evolved (timeline) were a result of their geographical locations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's divide-and-rule.
At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be coordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoritism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favoritism.
"Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Maybe you did not watch the debate.
The polls carried out during the war revealed that the people in big UK cities which had been bombed, overwhelmingly did not want revenge.
Strangely enough, it was the people in towns which had not been bombed, which were the most vicious advocates of bombing Germany (even though they had not been bombed themselves).
Today, this truth is still alive.
The most vicious advocates of war, destruction, pillage and plunder are those "armchair general" and "kids in mom's basement" types. Never sufferers violence or need, but the first to scream kill, kill, kill, war, war, war.....
[yup, as long as others suffer]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rickglorie Great question.
IMO, most people get along just fine, irrelevant of differences. As long as nobody meddles in peoples affairs too much, differences are usually settled peacefully. Of course, there are always troublemakers.
Politics however, can't make all the people happy all the time, so it should aim to make most of the people happy most of the time. "Perfection" doesn't exist, because it's utopian.
It only really becomes problematic if politicians enter the scene with the intention to gain from differences, rather than to smooth these differences over by implementing decent laws or policies. Populists often try to appeal to the lowest moral values, and then use these as tools to divide.
IMO, that is what we witnessed with Trump in the USA.
The same can happen in any European country of course.
IMO, the EU (Brussels) shouldn't meddle too much in cultural or local issues.
Central governments should only take care of the bigger issues to facilitate trade between European regions, remove barriers, or implement changes (say industrial norms) to make the exchange of goods and services easier.
In fact, what I personally like about European countries, is that they are different. It would be boring if they all became the same.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hamas, just like every single "terrorist" organisation EVER, at any point in history ever, in any geographical location ever, by any religion ever, are always an EFFECT of oppression.
The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they created themselves with own PREVIOUS political actions, as terrorists...
Terrorism/Freedom fighting (POV) is always an "effect" not a "cause."
If you live in the west, then you (personally), or your parents, grandparents or previous generations have never ever ever fought anybody your own leaders have not personally set you up against.
Try me on this one.
Name me the war, incl. this current "War on Terror", and I'll inform you how your own government created it (aka "lay the foundation").
1
-
Cooperation between human systems is by nature chaotic, because human nature is complex but at least somewhat predictable. When the dividers came to Britain with the Roman Empire, it did not matter to the dividers why some local Brits cooperated with the empire, to divide and overpower or destroy the local systems of power, or how divided Brits already were before Rome arrived, which local Brit collaborator got what and how much for cooperation with the empire: what is important, is that enough cooperated for Rome to overpower Britain.
POWERS have always done it.
"Divide" the opposition any way possible.
If you have trouble imagining how "division" works, then imagine a wall from which single bricks are extracted one after the other, by POWER or allure (usually money), until the wall gets fragile or even collapses.
The group that can divide all others groups, and avoid them from uniting into larger entities, will rule over all the others.
It is not complicated, never mind what any dissenters wish to inform you of, or all that so-called news filling your screen with 99% ancillary details every day.
Formula in any divide-and-rule strategy, carried out as premeditated aim or instinctively, and regardless of the tier of power.
Maximum unity for "us" (ingroup doing the division).
Maximum division for all others (outgroups to be divided for gain).
A typical position of an apologist, once the apologist for immoral actions realizes an objectively correct observation provable by looking at primary sources like maps, can no longer be denied, is to engage in "bothsidesisms" or the claim that "both sides were doing the same thing." No, incorrect. Because only ONE "side" had the geographical advantage to actually implement the encirclement of the other.
For the American Century after the year 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger chunk of land than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": the technique used was the same.
For the "divider" the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in order to achieve the useful division for the higher power, are not important. When the dividers came to Europe with the fledgling American Century, it did not matter to the dividers why some local Europeans cooperated with the empire, to divide and overpower or destroy the local systems of power, or how divided Europeans already were before Washington DC appeared on scene in ever-increasing perpetuity after 1900, which local European collaborator got what and how much for cooperation with the empire: what is important, is that enough cooperated for Washington DC to subject Europe. These are the 99% ancillary details of history. It doesn't matter how division is implemented, or how existing divides are deepened, or who aids for whatever reasons, or whether those aiding and abetting division are even aware that they are aiding division: what matters is that it is implemented.
For the divider it is not important why the tools cooperate, but the fact that the tools cooperate in creating division in overpowering a chunk of the planet somewhere.
Why and that are different premises...
The empire in search of systemic expansion does not care about the "why".
The trick is that the mass media, and our leaders advocating the spread of their ideology, have deceived you into thinking "territorial expansion = bad", whilst at the same time, the same people who "point fingers" (aka the "blame game") cheer for systemic expansion.
Both are cycles of lies leading to wars, and wars leading to lies, and then lies leading to wars again.
1
-
If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
David Ben-Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
“Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. … Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice.”
— David Ben Gurion. Quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan’s “Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.
“We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return.”
David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar’s Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.
1
-
1
-
Footnote:
Note that according to Machiavelli, the "princes" connected to the land and who benefited from their hereditary rule were also the GATEKEEPERS and were connected to what they saw as theirs. Whether one likes this style of inherited wealth and power or not, their role was the gatekeepers of being the managers of own affairs. Opposed to that, in strategy and human nature, the "mercenary" is the OUTSIDER (internationalists/globalists) who came/come or the profit and gain and who are NOT "connected" to the land and its peoples at all, and place their own interests, often vested interests, BEFORE the people who live on the land. This narrative is often distorted today into meaning that "to be a Machiavelli is to be an a-hole" which is a distortion of what the book was about. Machiavelli states clearly to keep ones "princes" in POWER, for to lose them would mean losing the GATEKEEPERS, who via their own vested interests, also protect the people who live in entire regions of the world. Via Trojan Horses, "democracies" can be CAPTURED (culturally-, economically-, politically-, emotionally and militarily), as a process which can be studied as the actors reveal themselves through their actions/events. This can be studied as systemic analyses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It "started" quite innocently, way before WW2.
With a London policy.
I'm sure the British population and the inhabitants of Empire would have been happy if their toffs hadn't made Germany the enemy as a default setting.
The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting...
[britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power]
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.
It came first before all other considerations.
It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding
1) alliances
2) treaties (or no treaties)
3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord)
4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle)
5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint)
6) when to engage in arms races
7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences
Go over your history, and see its handwriting all around...
Enjoy.
1
-
1
-
@gustavagenbacht6600 It goes far deeper than that.
It was fundamentally wrong, and because it was fundamentally wrong, there was a price to pay for "the winners" too.
British leaders bombed the British Empire into ruin.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their pre-war markets, and were not going to give them back.
It cost the Brits their Empire...
Self own...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vrsekodkofoly Here is the situation, from a neutral analysis:
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal: a few grams of weed...
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, patrolled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The real "WW1", or first "great" war actually took place from 1803 to 1815.
In terms of scope and victims, it was mainly limited by technology. Still, despite the limited capabilities of the weapons of the times, there were more than 4 million victims, in all corners of the globe.
The first truly "global war".
Notice however how historians (correctly btw) separate this "first global war" (aka The Napoleonic Wars) into seven distinct phases, based on a scientific and exact analyses of the reasons/motivations at the time, whereas for WW1/WW2 there are attempts to create one big emotionally steered mashup.
Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, historians are of course far more candid re. "motivations/reasons" (note: the real reasons, not the ancillary details). Most people are entirely emotionally detached from events 200 years ago, so there is also no need to spin history either to appease an own population.
There are no endless debates about "Who started it?"
The Napolionic Wars were of course declared by London, as a preventive war, in May 1803, and the (correct) reason/motivation given for this declaration of war, by most historians, is that it was to "avoid the single hegemony" on the continent.
In 1914, "WW1" evolved out of a local conflict, which started in the Balkans, and through a few unfortunate twists and turns developed into the second truly "world" war, in order to establish domination and rule.
Hanlon's Razor states "not to attribute to mallice, what can adequately be explained by stupidity", and with WW1, Europe started its own demise because of efforts to remain individually dominant/relevant.
Of course, on the other side of the Atlantic, wars were always fought for unity, and common goals (aim of expansion).
The American Century was a ship already launched, but renamed halfway.
The "ship" started its journey with a war of unity (Civil War because of "poor slaves" aka "the emotional argument"), then expanding westwards (Manifest Destiny, Mexican-American War), getting rid of entities which could be misused by foreign powers to "divide and rule" ("Trails of Tears" of the unfortunate "losers" of history), and the consolidation of own strength (Monroe Doctrine/Spanish-American War).
And with that, the "ship" bumped up against the "dock", which was European rule and domination of the globe.
Didn't anybody notice?
The history of the west I guess, in a five minute nutshell...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened. The word "rule" also constitutes a "trigger", or natural aversion, which would mean psychologically oposing a theory, simply based on the words used.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please, lol.
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage (see below comments thread for a few). These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favoratism.
"Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS/GLOBALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS/MILITARISTS. Their branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What connects the topic of this video, as "compartmentalized history" and 99% ancillary details, with the bigger overall European "picture"?
It is "divide and rule" as THE "systems/strategies" tier of things, as the 1% of history that counts...
Exemplary of a divide and rule/conquer strategy:
Entire regions of human beings are used or set up as proxies, as "walls" or "Limitrophe States" to seperate potential areas which might unite.
Wiki: "In modern history, it was used to refer to provinces that seceded from the Russian Empire at the end of World War I, during the Russian Civil War (1917–1922), thus forming a kind of belt or cordon sanitaire separating Soviet Russia from the rest of Europe during the interwar period.[4]... The nations were then "the cards to change hands in big political games" and included the Baltic peoples, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians."
These nations were, and still are today, simply "tools" for the empires who hold the geographical advantage of power
When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think*** today.
Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer of and over continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers.
These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology).
Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.
The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group. As for Wilson, was he really that naive to think that the large and prominent forces of isolationism would not prevail, and lead to the USA/Washington DC not joining any collectivised system of security for the entire planet?
Was there really no "Plan B" in Washington DC?
Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
The "oh so fine" British Lordships thought they could play divide and rule/conquer games with the world, and in the end British citizens and military men lost bigtime, as at the very end of the Empire, their own Lordships "...ran off with all the f%cking money..." (quote = George Carlin/ reality = tax havens).
The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely.
No, this is not a "yet another conspiracy theory," but elaborated and provided with sufficient evidence, and inductive/deductive reasoning on the other channel/video.
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
**As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the *systems/strategies tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.
1
-
While Wilhelm ruled Germany, and unfortunately "family ties" could not patch things up in divided Europe, in a changing world.
Of course one could argue that there wasn't any "European unity" to "divide" at the time (around 1900), but that isn't the only purpose of "divide and rule". Divide and rule also seeks preventive action, to avoid unity if such a threat is spotted on the horizon...
Also, there was no "1900 alpha" with a "Truman Doctrine"-style tool to create unity (under which it had the sole "ultimate weapon") by
creating a common rival/enemy either...
Only "a Wilhelm" trying to unite European powers behind a common cause...
Unfortunately in the study of history we only have two options: Simply believe what others tell us, or do own research.
Please download and read "Germany and the Spanish-American War" from JSTOR (free pdf).
The US plans to overpower Spain and take their colonies started in 1897.
So did Berlin's contigency plans for the USA (low-key at first, later adapted as the Spanish-American War progressed).
Yet what remains today as "important history"?
The historian explains (its only 12 pages from a longer book) how uniting Europe behind a common cause ("defending own European interests by uniting and siding with Spain") was Wilhelm's real goal.
The "German planned attack on America" today being widely spread as the assumed sign of "Wilhelm's evil" and "desire to rule the world", is an ancillary detail of course. Yes, a highly emotionally charged one (google "appeal to emotion") and can therefore serve as a sort of "clickbait" in history to distract from the more tedious and boring books explaining what really happened.
The Spanish-American War was the last opportunity to unite Europe behind a common cause.
Too bad the alpha at the time was ruled by a gambler and womanizer (Edward) and otherwise engaged (Second Boer War). Too busy to come up with a "turn of the century (1900)"-version of the Truman Doctrine herself.
According to that history, in 1897/1898 Wilhelm did not want to act alone, but preferred to try and find common concensus "along family lines" first, but failed because European capitals were more about "me first", in a rapidly changing world.
Subsequently Europe made it easy for Washington DC to start playing their "divide and rule". Paris was the first to try and snuggle up to a disinterested Washington DC, followed by London...
And today?
The post-WW2 Truman Doctrine and the "united Europe" it helped to forge (at least in the west after WW2), no longer serves its intended purpose.
Time to "divide and rule" again...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Blah, blah, blah...America has always been about expansion at the expense of somebody else.
Like all Empires, policies like the Manifest Destiny, Monroe Doctrine, and the New American Century (and the new PNAC) will guarantee eternal war.
Wars of choice, like the Spanish -American War, like WW1, endless war.
War on this, war on that.
A violent militarist nation that is being torn apart on the inside (crime, gun violence) and tearing the world apart on the outside.
Bye, bye. F*ck off. Nobody will miss you...
1
-
1
-
1
-
The point...
It's what happens if you make the wrong friends.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrShelbyGTman but, but, but....everybody has a "little Rambo" hidden deep inside :-)
All it takes, is to spent hours, and hours, and hours, and hours, and hours, and hours, and hours, and hours, and hours, and hours, and hours of your life honing skills on a range...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wmthewyld PragerU is not telling the whole story.
They are using a propaganda method called "lying by omitting".
Here is what happened, and the timeline is important.
It is Miss Chow who "started it" by wanting to restrict fellow Americans' unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and happiness" and trying to impose her own convictions onto others .
Trying to restrict another American's rights, not based on a factual argument (say, restricting gun rights because of the many deaths), but using one's own "feelings" is un-American.
That means not understanding basic rights , as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
She didn't choose for herself.
She made a political decision (simulated of course) that impacted others and that goes against the spirit it of separation of church and state as desired by the founding fathers.
She did not only "abstain", which is her right to do.
She hid behind her Bible, stating that is what made her choose the way she did. Obviously, it is her own convictions, but she blames her "god"...
1
-
1
-
@wmthewyld Whoever said she didn't have a right to her own opinion, or even to state it? (1st Amendment).
Of course she does.
Furthermore, nobody says "the separation of church and state is in the Constitution", but that doesn't mean it's not one of the cornerstones of modern western societies.
From wiki, cos I hate typing :-)
"Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of theEstablishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced to aJanuary 1, 1802, letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."[
That simply means that every religious person can exercise their religion as they damn well please. Doesn't matter if you are a Scientologist, a Baptist, or that guy believing that "God is an alien".
Nobody can stop anybody from believing and exercising whatever the hell they want.
But, what you personally believe, should not be imposed on the beliefs of anybody else.
No religion/church gets special political privilege.
One's beliefs or non-beliefs are a private matter.
She linked a political decision (simulated of course) to her religion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wmthewyld "Confucianism, also known as Ruism, is described as tradition, a philosophy, a religion, a humanistic or rationalistic religion, a way of governing, or simply a way of life."
If you wish to describe atheism as philosophy...fine.
If you wish to see it as a way of life...fine.
But here is what atheism does not have that distinguishes it from all religions:
- NO churches or temples
- NO single/mixture of human or non-human cult figure/s
- NO rituals
- NO "holy books" or "books of wisdom"
- NO organised festivals, songs, events, parades, etc.
In short, no structure.
If you can't even accept the definitions of words, agreed upon by billions of people, how are we supposed to have a debate?
You can't even agree that the DEFINITION of atheism is fixed.
1
-
@wmthewyld You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by simply looking up the words "religion" and "belief" like I wrote 10 comments up.
Here, I'll help you out:
"Durkheim's definition of religion, from Elementary Forms, is as follows: "A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
What you then provided as "evidence" are various gatherings or movements.
None of what you link to prove that atheism is a religion.
Atheist don't believe in anything religions usually believe in.
Non-belief isn't a belief system.
You might as well post a link to cooking show and tel me that everybody attending "believe" in the "cooking spirit"...lol
No, even Druids "believed" in spirits, water spirits, fairies, nature spirits, etc.
Look up the definitions I gave you around 10 comments up, and then get back to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wmthewyld Please scroll up.
I wrote:
"But here is what atheism does not have that distinguishes it from all religions:
- NO churches or temples
- NO single/mixture of human or non-human cult figure/s
- NO rituals
- NO "holy books" or "books of wisdom"
- NO organised festivals, songs, events, parades, etc.
In short, no structure.
If you can't even accept the definitions of words, agreed upon by billions of people, how are we supposed to have a debate?
You can't even agree that the DEFINITION of atheism is fixed."
You are simply ignoring what I wrote, and therefore strawmaning.
You cannot simply take one of those things (no churches or temples) and then show me a video of atheist meeting in a ex-Christian church, and then claim that you proved me wrong.
Nope, it is a meeting in a church.
Do you want me to show you a disco which opened in a church, and then claim that this is a religion, "because they are dancing in a church".
Atheism isn't a religion.
If you keep on repeating this bs, then answer the following question.
Who do they pray to?
What do they sacrifice?
Who is their spiritual leader?
What "holy book" do they recite from?
For a movement to fit the definition of "religion", it must...well, uhm...fit the definition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chamberlain inherited a problem he did not cause, because the root of WW2 lies in the arrogance of power at the end of WW1...
1938
Hitler "the pistol".
Stalin "the ammo".
The reason why a British and French "deal" with Stalin in 1938 wasn't possible, lies in the events at the end of WW1.
Both Poland (google the Polish Russian War of 1920) and Romania (Moldavia) occupied or had annexed territory which once belonged to Moscow's sphere of influence.
In 1938, this was simply the reality "on the ground", so to speak.
If GB or France had signed a deal with Stalin (in an effort try scare Hitler off from attacking Czechoslovakia), it would have played directly into the fascists' hands...
Since all of Central Europe was guaranteed by London and Paris ("Little Entente"),and the leaders here had even gotten the faintest notion that they were going to be "sold off", they would have allied with the new alpha-males on the block....Berlin-Rome (in order to secure their interests).
In other words, a deal with Stalin was only possible at the expense of losing Poland and the (already brittle) Little Entente nations.
Furthermore, if GB and France had made a deal with Moscow, Hitler would have invaded Czechoslovakia or bullied it into submission anyway, and in case of a British/French declaration of war, Hitler would also have attacked Gibraltar with the Legion Condor...
As the events of 1939 had shown, all of this would have been accomplished before the French had even put their pants on :-)
Stalin off course, would have done nothing, because his real aim was to cause a destabilization of the European order...
Both Hitler AND Stalin were playing the sick game of 'divide and rule/conquer', and the reason this was even possible lies in the events directly following WW1: Versailles, Trianon, Polish and Czech arrogance of power, little beta-males, stomping around Central Europe with London and Paris looking on with a smile on their faces....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Globalism/imperialism created all of its own enemies. Everything the USA /collective West is fighting/combatting these days, they created themselves in the past.
------------------------
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it is the only strategy which can be invisibly employed in times of war, and in times of peace.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
Two things would have stopped him.
1) more gun free zones, guarded by professionals, just like during the Wild West. During the Wild West, frontier towns were gun free zones, and everybody who tried to sneak past was automatically branded.
Since gun free zones don't have dozens of hillbillies running around with guns, shouting "I'm the good guy with the gun", the authorities can zero in on the criminal in seconds.
Here, it worked, and there were 3 innocent victims and not dozens.
Gun free zones work.
2) A nationwide, restricted gun law plus standard test on ability (same as driving) would restrict access to firearms to vetted and trained "good guys".
In this example, the guns had to be bought outside state.
He had no access to firearms, and if there had been a similar law nationwide, he could not have bought a weapon. Period (note, black market prices quickly double and tripple).
Without a long rifle, there would have been even less victims.
With a fully automatic military style rifle, there would have been hundreds.
Gun control works.
1
-
Ideologically indoctrinated politicians who lie, and the warriors they incite to fight to spread their ideologies, are the root cause of all evil in the world. One doesn't even have to infer much, since they will tell you straight in your face what they want.
According to the dictionary, an ideology is an organized set of political or economic ideas... for example, "democracy" and "capitalism," both of which are ideologies. Of course it's fine to be enamored by the own system, or favor it, but always heed the GOLDEN RULE. Further...do not lie, do not steal, do not ki!! to spread your own.
If one tries to list all the ideologically inspired lies and deceptions by politicians who have started/bandwagoned wars to (quote) "make the world safe for democracy" the list will be long and the victims uncountable, because the ideologues don't even bother to count them.
TODAY
It does not want total war, say the ideologues of the USA/collective West, but the capitulation of Russia. I ask you: do you want total war? Do you want it - if necessary - more total and radical than we can even imagine today?
These ideologues have strategized millions of deaths and total ruin emanating from London and Washington DC to spread their ideologies and spheres of influence, and that's just the wars since 1945. Not even to mention those before that. It is futile to try to educate the masses who are going into the trenches about the harmful effects of war. People already know it, but they are powerless against the forces that are leading entire regions into war. These top politicians, who sit in- sinecure comfort in peacetime and have bunkers in wartime, have no intention of bearing the consequences of their decisions.
And the people?
Too many are too ignorant to find out what is going on.
Too many are too indifferent to care about what is taking place in their names.
Too many are too complacent to do anything, even if they find out.
Too many are too arrogant to consider that they might have it all wrong.
Too many are too dumb to understand that words have meaning, and they therefore become the tools of others.
1
-
1
-
One side, is setting the stage for war.
"Somebody" is in the way, but I won't mention names :-)
Somebody needs a justification and a "WMD"- reason to invade...
Somebody is desperately trying to point the finger elsewhere, hoping dumb people won't notice....
Let's look at a historical parallel:
All throughout the 1920s and 1930s, there was this dangerous ideology which threatened us all…
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Wahhabism,-terrorism-and-the-'confessions'-of-a-Saudi-prince-43465.html
And then Dachau and other slave camps. What kind of people would enslave their neighbors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Saudi_Arabia
And, oh...you know that „burning books“- thingy…
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall09/jawad_n/traditionalmedia.html
And racism...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Saudi_Arabia
Purges and taking out rivals was a sure indication that Hitler was getting rid of the internal opposition to his agenda. Obviously, everybody knows where that goes...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-crackdown-corruption-or-critics/
Of course, even during the Olympics, he was just presenting his best side, cheating us with a few cheap tricks. Obviously, these „cheap propaganda tricks“ were only created to fool the international world. So obvious, right?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-women-driving.html
He went about, intimidating little neighboring states….
https://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-threatens-block-qatar-s-land-sea-borders-541971.html
The Spanish Civil War and the Legion Condor was simply „honing skills“. Obviously just training to attack somebody else. Why didn‘t anybody stop him?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian%E2%80%93led_intervention_in_Yemen
And that increase in arms was a dead giveaway. Honestly! Let‘s invade now, before they get even stronger…
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/05/20/donald-trump-signs-tremendous-deal-with-saudi-arabia/
And remember what happened when the world started to criticise the aggression? Yes, he left the League of Nations, because it was bad.
Of course, the ENTIRE world was wrong, not the own actions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_United_Nations
And when he makes "new friends" with Stalin, he's only looking for a free back. Obviously, he'll come back for Stalin later. Didn't they read Mein Kampf?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/israel-saudi-arabia-relations/
Oh, and did I mention war?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/07/the-first-saudi-iranian-war-will-be-an-even-fight/
Quattar and Al Jazeera is in the way....
They don't follow orders...
They might report the truth....
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very simply answered:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy.
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
Don't be a sheep.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."[end of]
America's allies and foes in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
Set up European and Eurasian nations against each other.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
1
-
1
-
1
-
For hundreds of years the London/British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations, especially "little nations". Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed from dark archives: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images").
The photographs look a lot like Coventry, don't they?
Kagoshima, Canton, Sebastopol (Krim War), and and dozens of others. Such fun to have own leaders coining the term "Copenhagenization" to mock the children they burnt alive while cheering on the historical heroes committing such acts. Victims? Who cares about victims? Right? Of course, so the "narrative" goes, people who lived a long time ago, didn't suffer pain, simply because they lived a long time ago...
British sense of logic.
From wiki: "Oh, that example of Copenhagen has worked wonders in the world!...I (would) like to see the name of that city become a verb... 'cities will be copenhagenized' is an excellent phrase." William Cobbet
Excellent indeed.
His wish would one day become true, long after he was dead and gone, but surely not according to his dreams...
So around the world they went, turning towns and cities and entire kingdoms into "mere verbs".
Such great fun, bomb(ard)ing everybody else, but not getting bomb(ard)ed oneself.
Terror bombing countless towns and villages as the weapons improved, but the practice remained: creating uncounted victims because nobody cared enough to even count. Later, in Mesopotamia, and Aden, the Sudan, and then euphemistically terming this "Air Policing". Makes you think that terror bombing people unable to defend themselves against superior technology, is really just your friendly neighborhood Bobby keeping the peace, lol...
When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exciting it was to "dodge bullets". The locals defending their own? Mowing down natives armed with spears, with machine guns? Pfffft. Who gives a...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps ("penal colonies" for cheap labor), and then burning evidence of crimes right through into the 1960s (google Operation Legacy).
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down and V-2s rained down on their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
Not so great having own cities and streets turned into mere verbs, right?
William Cabbot, and other British leaders' heartfelt desire to turn cities into mere verbs finally came true.
Londonization, Liverpoolization, Southamptonization, Hullization, Doverization...Coventrization.
Boooooo hoooooooo
The most based "reaped as sown" ever...
Then, all of a sudden, everybody was soooooooo tired of all that "Empire"-stuff.
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they would never forget.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Then we can agree on many things.
The point of a debate should always be to find the most objectively correct theory, based on verifiable evidence available.
I personally have no problem changing my point of view, if new evidence becomes available. If not, we'd be too dogmatic, don't you think?
Yes, I entirely agree that calling out a "home front" in the USA was the correct thing to do at the time.
Only a fool would argue that WW2 was not a justified cause for war. We might differ on details, but that core issue is not up to debate as far as I'm concerned :-)
As far as "lying to the people", it is a mixed bag and like a pendulum could easily swing too far into the other extreme...
Unfortunately, most people lack the cognitive ability to judge the real world, so lying to the masses makes sense sometimes. Overdo it, and we are faced with the tale of "the boy who cried wolf". Cry wolf too often, and the opposite effect takes place from the one intended.
Yes, mass psychology (such as the propaganda of the "US home front in WW2" which you painted, when in reality there wasn't too much of a danger) is certainly a fascinating debating topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peace? More like "piece"...
You don't have to study thousands of books and watch endless debates on the topic "How US foreign policy works."
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, including their neighbours and using friends, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others, including their neighbours and using friends, and is hiding behind the mainstream stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others, any which way.
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
The imperialists and their apologist even chant the same slogans today, and still use the same strategies of expansion as they did 500, 200 and 100 years ago, but are too ignorant and indifferent to either know or care. As always, the warning voices of the sane halves are ignored, downplayed, "finger pointed" at as "unpatriotic," or as being "in bed with the enemy", and many other forms of equally "rhyming history." It is what they spend billions on every year to obfuscate reality, so their empires can keep on marching marching marching marching to the jolly tunes...
The systems and corporations came in droves for SYSTEMIC EXPANSION and all they ever wanted was peace...peace...PEACE....PIECE...
A little piece land with own laws over here for a little American/NATO base (wherever previous wars were fought).
A nice little piece of capital over there, of the Nordstream project (which is rumored, it destroyed itself).
A piece of the Panama Canal ...just "wanted back" mind you (rescinding a signed and valid treaty).
A tiny sliver of those Ukrainian/Caucasian raw materials (which just so happened, pure coincidence I'm sure, on the own "marching route").
A nice little chunk of real estate, in the Levant (in the ME, kept divided by empires since post-WW1 years).
Just a little little bit of a percentage of political influence EVERYwhere (political meddling, regime change, drone wars, war on everything everywhere).
And, let's not forget, ALL of Greenland... ALL of it...
The meddling created by the own proactive divide-and-rule strategy of power then results in effects:
Imperialistic meddling is always a CAUSE to which there will be a resulting EFFECT.
1
-
Crises and wars is what one gets if one wants to rip/deceive a "sphere of influence" out of the hands of a rival.
WW1 came about because Imperialist Russia wanted to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence out of the hands of" Austria-Hungary.
It "started" with a slug-out between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, and "ended" in WW1.
WW2 came about because of Hitler/Nazi Germany and Stalin/the SU wanting to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence out of the hands of" the West/empires (GB/France)".
It "started" with a slug-out between Germany and Poland, and "ended" in WW2.
WW2 expanded into the Pacific because Japan tried to "rip a sphere of influence out of the hands of" France in Indochina. It resulted in a slug-out between Japan and the USA.
The War in the Ukraine came about because the USA/West/NATO wanted to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence" out of the hands of Russia.
It "started" with a slug-out between the Ukraine and pro-Russian seperatists proxies (fueled by the USA/West/NATO), and will end in a "2nd Cold War" (hopefully "only" a "cold war").
An eternal game...
Friends one day, enemies the next, friends one day, enemies the next, friends one day, enemies the next...
Why philosophize endlessly about whether it is "one left arm" or "only one ball" which "starts wars", if one can simply point at "greed" or the desire to "rule" over others?
Irrelevant of the context and time (truisms). Leaders "defending the indefensible" will always be around.
They were there 100 years ago, a 1,000 years and they were there 20 years ago when war could have been avoided by simply being honorable and stopping the ongoing process of "privatized sphere of influence" stealing, using every trick in the book to disguise their actions.
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers.
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same butt which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity.
Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."
Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power.
In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS.
Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket for the modus operandi. Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
---------------------------------------
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's always never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose.
Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever thought about what such a policy meant?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be written off...
It means these slimy deceitful Albions expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
To hell with them.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy..."
Me: ROFL
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary lines drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that "faraway empires" would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? It looks very interesting. Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies...
How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets they have. Want some..."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up. Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnrogers1423 The premise was stil "showing a resolve to fight (to Washington DC)".
"At the Nuremberg Trials, German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions."[11] General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks."[12]
From wiki
The correct number of available forces were 40 divisions, 78 artillery regiments, and 40 tank battalions.
Irrelevant of success or not, their immediate attack would have forced the Germans to withdraw significant number of troops from Poland, giving the Poles a "breather" and possibly even have saved Warsaw.
There is no reason to believe that the Western Alles and the SU would have clashed, had London/Paris informed Warsaw (after the 17th) that they would have to accept the loss of their eastern territories (east of the post-WW1 Curzon Line), and that London/Paris would under no circumstances continue their assault on Germany in the west, should Polish forces decide to attack the SU.
The people who lived east of the Curzon Line were overwhelmingly White Russians and Ukrainians, so there would have been no moral obligation to oppose the SU from "taking them back".
1
-
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
1
-
1
-
Yes, the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and cute "Uncle Joe" for fools who don't understand how the world works...
Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world "you shall not have nuclear weapons!"
https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/british-nuclear-program
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
Irony and sarcasm aside, but that is some weird "special relationship" if you ask me.
A "friend" who does not even want you to have nukes, if he has some himself?
Sounds like a serious control-freak issue...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: WRONG.
It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid ze divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
The Big Lie is the power of the divide and rule/conquer technique, and even the Nazis hid their "Big Lie"-conspiracy theory, behind an even bigger lie: how they intended to play this game until they got into power after their failed coup d'etat.
The "Big Lie" is not a myth but a misrepresentation of the truth.
It is the power of "divide and rule/conquer" which lurks behind every strategy they follow, in order to gain.
No human being has ever come up with a means to overcome this age-old technique of ruling over billions of people, because it is predicated on human nature itself, which is enduring.
No power player wants to become associated with authoritarian, or "colonial" tactics and strategies, or Nazis, so they cannot use it as a political means to attack rivals: it will immediately result in blowback.
The "Big Lie" conspiracy masked the divide and rule technique.
No power player can ever accuse any other power player of using it, since it will immediately backfire: the accusation of using the technique themselves, which in most cases of intent of gain will even apply***. The disguise usually comes in the form of scapegoating or another form of appeal to the emotion of listeners, or addressing and fortifying their already existing biases.
"Scapegoating" = an appeal to lower emotions of potential supporters.
In our divided societies, appealing to these biases might always be that tiny little "weight" that tilts the scale in very tightly run political elections.
Most power players read books on strategy, with the intention of using these strategies for personal gain, not because they wish to benefit you (the individual).
There is always the urge to defend own favored systems, when one reads perceived "attacks" on these favored systems or own heroes, and the beloved own "-isms", which also reveal standard procedures, meaning the "attacker" soon falls into predetermined pathways to deflect and obfuscate from the core theory...
Footnotes:
**only applies in competitive "intent of gain" systems, *not benevolent forms of reciprocal human interaction which are 100% fair...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS.
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Once there is an inpact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, and big business, and Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A bit off topic, but the often stated "naval arms race" being a cause for WW1 is a misconception. Historians pin their flag on the date "1906", saying that here is where that "history" started.
Actually, the naval arms race started in 1871, with an unsuccessful attempted blockade of northern German ports during the Franco-Prussian War by the French navy.
The "cause" was therefore the intention of German leaders to protect German citizens from the threat of blockade. Blockading an enemy, was one of the favorite means of economic warfare at the time. It therefore "started" with a German-French naval arms race, and expanded to a German - French/Russian arms race after France and Russia formed an alliance (Entente Cordial).
It was the British policy for the continent called "Balance of Power" which escalated tensions. By default, the policy practically dictated that the continent's most powerful state/alliance would be "the enemy in war". This was determined by British politicians, in London, and nobody else can be blamed for this attitude, but British policy makers.
German leaders therefore countered that, on the foundation of facts, which meant that "by default" (until the policy of Balance of Power changed) they were "the enemy" in the minds of British leaders
When GB joined Russia and France, creating the Tripple Entente, this "naval arms race" was already in full swing. Obviously, German leaders then had to protect German ports from a potential blockade of THREE navies. British, Russian, and French.
In other words, the German naval re-armament was an "effect" of previous actions (causality). Not a "cause" but an "effect" of previous events. The German leaders reacted to a potential threat (blockade).
A confusion of "cause and effect", by simply pinning a "starting date" randomly on a timeline. "History" is being "sold" to us the wrong way, and it is easy to confuse people.
Also, study the design parameters of the German ships built up to WW1. Note that they were close range, coast defence vessels without any global reach.
(Google the difference between a "Blue Water Navy" and "Coast Defence i.e. "Brown--" or "Green Water Navies")
The threat to the RN and the British Empire was the typical fear mongering by arms manufacturers, vying for funds for their particular industry.
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join up...
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
Feb 17, 2024 — 'If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu,' says US Secretary of State Blinken...
Remember the names of all their "lunches."
Remember all their victims.
As millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy. All around the world, millions of others like Aaron Bushell have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Eastern Europe and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs.
Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent.
Of course, London already knew this.
That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem:
Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900).
And so "poor little Belgium" was born.
Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"...
France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war.
The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about turn mind-control trick :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first, and the truth had to be bent to fit the policy.
Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals.
It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up.
Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights".
It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
1
-
1
-
@DrSilktest7 Brits thought they were sooooo clever and make a "pig's breakfast" out of Europe, as they always did as a matter of policy.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister [rolls eyes and laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister (shortened)
No "satire" there at all.
Not "funny comedy" at all if one ends up as a "tool" of London's little divide and rule schemes.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists...
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against Germans and Russians (see Limitrophe States) and Russians against Romanians (see the Little Entente).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife. Divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so they could pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Ask the affected millions what they wanted for themselves? Nah. That was below the lords...
So in 1939 Stalin and Hitler came along and made "a pig's breakfast" of the London lord's little scheme for their "divided continent" (see Secret Protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact). They colluded, and made a pig's breakfast out of Poland. A pig's breakfast out of the Little Entente. The Limotrophe States? Right...more breakfasts for the pig's...
The lords wanted to play divide and rule with the continent's inhabitants indefinitely, and turn them into tools for own gain, and in the end the UK became a junior partner and tool of Washington DC, and they lost their Empire. Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945 and a subsequent few years.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was reduced to the status of "a scrap of paper".
Awww. Sad. No nukes for the "special relationship" best fwiends 😅
Subsequently Washington DC used British weakness and made a pig's breakfast out of British markets (economic warfare), and re-divided the world into "east and west".
Didn't anybody notice?
The world went from a divided continent, to suit the expansion/protection of the British Empire/London, to a divided world, to suit the expansion/protection of The American Century/Washington DC.
Awww...poor British Empire.
They wanted to "sow" their pig's breakfast to everybody else, and evtl. ended up "reaping" and being forced to eat their own words.
Lovely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and lose is closer to what happened.
DIVIDE AND CONTROL
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please :-)
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels, and any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain, simply needed to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. Once "divided", there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Some examples regarding the theory in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors would offer a foothold in Europe.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have such consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement after 1895, amongst other less "valuable" suitors, was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below). The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises made"...lol
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...lol.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics sterted with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947. It is alive and well. It has surrounded every aspect of power politics on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Same with the funding of opposing European leaders and states (for example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s).
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else, while "eating popcorn and chips"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give a weak mind money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlejandroMS67 THE STRATEGY OF THE PROXY
This strategy is as old as empires themselves...
In a systemic analysis the question "Who was right, or who was wrong: Armenius, or the Roman Empire?" becomes irrelevant over time. Why? Because every individual has opinions and priorities according to which right/wrong sides are judged, often incompletely (lack of information), biased, or simply poorly. At the time, the Roman Empire was the rules based order and simply determined right from wrong as a top-down strategy according to own priorities and interests, and steered events using its own GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER. In respect to Arminius, he was an example of the strategy employed by Rome on multiple fronts and regions. The strategy employed proactively was to use a talented individual, or a multitude of individuals combined by an idea (ideology), turned into a useful tool or an instrument of POWER. By granting such entities or individuals a "superior" (sic.) Roman education, wearing a toga, and speaking Latin, no doubt eating pizza, and then releasing such converts onto the "sa7ages/animalis" (sic.) of the rimlands, in some or other official function, in order to employ them as tools of the expanding empire. The institutions of the expanding empire, funded and pulled the strings in the background.
"Do as the Romans do" was not just a saying, but it was an actual strategy of POWER. As the Roman Empire expanded, others were simply expected to adapt, not ONLY "in Rome" as per saying, but everywhere Rome had emplaced itself, and started converting the "sa7ages" to its own norms and standards. Such a strategy might succeed, or it might simply fail spectacularly, as it did in the case of Armenius, who used his knowledge to stand up to the expansion of the Roman Empire, which was trying to use him as a tool to project the empire onto the native tribes where the desired marchroute of expansion lay in the forests of Central Europe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest
"The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest ... was a major battle between Germanic tribes and the Roman Empire that took place at modern Kalkriese from September 8–11, 9 AD, when an alliance of Germanic peoples ambushed Roman legions and their auxiliaries, led by Publius Quinctilius Varus. The alliance was led by Arminius, a Germanic officer of Varus's auxilia. Arminius had acquired Roman citizenship and had received a Roman military education, which enabled him to deceive the Roman commander methodically and anticipate the Roman army's tactical responses."
With regards to the Roman Empire, here is the critical question: What would have happened, had Arminius lost? Answer: The Roman Empire, the outsiders, would have taken one step forward, and the "ratchet" would have locked in...
However, the empire lost. Rome suffered its "Little Big Horn", but could simply come back tomorrow if it pleased, to "teach lessons" to the "injuns" in the outback of Europe. Such setbacks doesn't mean that this strategy of POWER and EXPANSION simply died out with the Roman Empires. Roman strategies lived on. At the time, Rome had the means to try try TRY again and again, because it had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of power. Dispite the defeat, the Roman Empire could still REACH its rivals, but these rivals could not REACH the Roman Empire, at least for the time being. The balance of power, and the technological and organisational superiority still favored the Roman Empire.
All European colonial empires, and the later rising USA, in fact "copy cat"-ed the Roman Empire, in pretty much everything they did. There are a multitude of historical examples of the implementation of this technique of "divide and rule", for example the "converted Japan" (into the ingroup), which served as a tool for the USA/(some) European Imperial powers in the late-19th century. The Roman Empire also did not invent these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies, because these simply morphed as time passed, and like living organisms simply adapted to their environment, the strategists/strategies adapted to every new era. Whether it was the British Empire trying to make "everybody speaking English", or the French trying to turn everybody in their sphere of interest into croissant eaters (lol), the STRATEGY was the same. Take a few talented locals, and morph them as proxies, in order to rule over all the other locals, by the newly-created division. Inject superior beings, as tools to convert the lower ranking original inhabitants, to become the next in the lineup. Morph their culture or way of life, so that these gradually and almost unnoticably, turn into the voluntary tools of the empire in charge, which is thus advancing one step at a time.
Such tools can then be employed in multiple useful manners, for example as soldiers, as taxpayers in various ways, as factories to produce lesser value goods for the empire, as local politicians in the "caboose" (pockets) of the empire, lawyers to implement the foreign empire's new laws, or simply as "barrier zones" (settler colonialism as explained in the below comments section in the essay starting with "In the study of conflict resulting out of the migration of large cultural groups...") ... or simply a systemic "buck catcher" (John Mearsheimer) to act as bait to lure an opposing empire into "extending" itself while battling a rimzone of another empire, of which the core of POWER is protected within the unreachable heartland of the empire who can steer/manage/moderate subsequent events.
1
-
@AlejandroMS67 In the study of conflict resulting out of the migration of large cultural groups, usually as part of agendas or expansion.
What is presently happening, as a part of a wider conflict going back at least 100 years, is the immigration of a superior culture of lighter skin-colored cultural ingroup, injected onto a darker skin-colored cultural outgroup.
The favored ingroup coming from outside (people born elsewhere) received land, livestock, and a home of sorts, all based on the advantage of having "friends in the right places", and having more resources at hand for the own aims and goals. In return, they become what the USA did during their own expansion into North America, the "farms/forts", which if "shot at" would always be "just defended", or "shooting back" (see below essays for more examples of this strategy or "101 playbook of imperialism" for expansion of the own systems).
The "settler colonist" (system) is the TOOL of expansion.
While the existing population was squeezed out of strategically vital areas one step at a time (arable farmland, for example, or sources of water), the faraway controlling political movement sought widespread support from whoever would give it, specifically from very imperialistic indoctrinated "friendly systems", for the own expansive goals. Real or at least tacid support for the "own -ism" is bought from large organisation, like the UN for example.
People who came with the well-wishing of large portions of the "ingroup"-supporters ("-isms"), or at least indifferent/ignorant of the real issues and therefore largely complacent, created a culture of "settler colonialism", creating a "storyline" that if such a settler colonist is attacked in any way, that they will be "just defending themselves". The original imperialist expansion (industrial/financial/argricultural/mining/raw materials/ideological, etc.), of "settler colonialism" being the cause of conflict, is simply never questioned at all...
Of course, one does not need a cristal ball, or be a Nostradumbass in order to predict that conflict was bound to take place, in view of previously unfolding similar series of historical events, in other places in the world, where people with an "-ism", emboldened by a feeling of cultural superiority, following a prescibed set of steps as strategy, in order to gain a superior political/economic position for the own "tribe" (tribalism).
When one studies the various perspectives about human conflict, one can't help wondering who is most to blame.
Is it:
1) the various enablers and deciders as executive powers? (leaderships)
2) those who saw financial opportunities to exploit, specifically in case troubles/strife ensued? (opportunists)
3) those who wished to proliferate themselves, advance personal carriers, or similar free-riders, but otherwise had no real POWER as executives? (political expediency of choosing sides)
4) the huddled masses without land, who decided to take the lifeline thrown at them, despite knowing that they were imposing on another already existing indigenous population? (chosen ingroup)
5) the indigenous population, mostly equaly "huddled masses" just trying to eke out a living, but who were never asked what they wanted for themselves as collective? (chosen outgroup)
6) any other, or a different order, since this is an open question
It should not be too difficult to conclude that responsibility for the resulting conflict goes pretty much in the order of 1 to 5, with those mostly responsible being the few "deciders" (as 1). These should not only have been in the position to foresee trouble ahead, but also to acknowledge these foreseeable events, and then search alternatives.
Only...
...the unfolding series of events did not take place in the Middle East, and did not involve London, the British Empire, France, or any other western power.
The conflict mentioned in the first paragraphs, has been taking place with gathering momentum over the past 100 years, is taking place in Irian Jaya (Indonesia) of course.
I hope nobody concluded is was about some other place somewhere else in the world...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_conflict
The "strategic encroachment" as part of such "outgroup"-agendas must be searched for...
"During the late 20th century Indonesia resettled 300,000 farmers to the restive province of West Papua, transforming its demographic composition. Such resettlement, or ‘transmigration’, was quite limited until the mid-1980s and restricted to only certain areas of West Papua. What accounts for the incidence of transmigration? Using a panel of all transmigration, ethnic cleansing and demographic change data in each regency of West Papua during 1964-2000 compiled from confidential government sources, I show that, after an aborted Papuan uprising in 1984, Indonesia cleansed and settled its border with Papua New Guinea to forestall cross-border insurgent activity. I then show that after the Grasberg gold mine was opened in 1990 Indonesia cleansed and settled the area around the mine." from the introduction of "Indonesian Settler Colonialism in West Papua", 10 Jun 2020, Lachlan McNamee, University of California, Los Angeles
According to the "NIMBY"-principle, most people actually do not care much about unfolding events far away, so are most likely completely unaware that there even is a simmering conflict somewhere else. According to "NIMBY" however, should the shoe be on the other foot, and the own existence becomes "encroached upon" by an outside migrating group (immigrants/refugees), all of similar background, it doesn't take long for the observed "unease" to begin. Firstly, in the form of lots of moaning and groaning, then if no political action changing the course of events results, the "steps" gradually increase in the level of violence exerted. Firstly there would be randomly organized protests, then larger forms of civil unrest, more property damage, more arson, the first deaths, and so on, and so on, until there is a large scale revolution. Any wise political leadership will always head off such series of unfolding events, but there must be a recognition that action is called for. If not, the series of events always follow predictable patterns, regardless of the tier of events, the cultural background of those involved, the gods these people pray to, the ideology, or the language spoken.
1
-
@AlejandroMS67 It's "divide and rule".
It's ALWAYS divide and rule if governments defend wrongs against the wishes of most of its inhabitants.
For the "dividers", the resulting division is always good. They can rule over the fear, the discord, the "finger pointers", and the "pointed at" alike.
The "winners"?
It those who send 3.8 billion to fund Israel each year, in Washington DC, almost all of it flowing back to the USA in the form of arms purchases...
NATO? It has been the "battering ram" for the USA/collective West ever since the end of the Cold War. It set up human beings as instruments of power, so that the true POWERS can stay out of wars, and steer/finance/manage the chaos, crises, and resulting wars...
It's how "divide and rule" works...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Washington DC "manages" war...
"Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment.[1] The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking,[2] and accordingly, a critical thinker is one who practices the skills of critical thinking or has been schooled in its disciplines.[3] Richard W. Paul has suggested that the mind of a critical thinker engages both the intellectual abilities and personal traits necessary for critical thinking.[4] Critical thinking presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism[5][6] and sociocentrism." (Wiki)
"In that context (not a ref. to the above but a previous chapter in the book), how America "manages" Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 percent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about 60 percent of the world's GNP and about threefourths of the world's known energy resources. Eurasia is also the location of most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. After the United States, the next six largest economies and the next six biggest spenders on military weaponry are located in Eurasia. All but one of the world's overt nuclear powers and all but one of the covert ones are located in Eurasia. The world's two most populous aspirants to regional hegemony and global influence are Eurasian. All of the potential political and/or economic challengers to American primacy are Eurasian. Cumulatively, Eurasia's power vastly overshadows America's. Fortunately for America, Eurasia is too big to be politically one..." THE GRAND CHESSBOARD American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski
Critical question.
If that is the realisation, then what is the strategy to avoid that?
Ahem..."manages"...
Last time I checked, "thoughts and prayers" are neither a strategy, nor a management style.
What Brzezinski fails to elaborate on in his book, is that his "periphery" of states stretching from South East Asia, via the Indian subcontinent, through Africa and from there to South America, just like Great Britain and the U.S.A. was once the "periphery" of Europe...
1
-
How our leaders avoid "avoiding war", and then make a racket...in three easy steps.
Step 1:
Ignore the warnings.
”I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.” George Kennan, re. NATO expansion, New York Times interview in 1998
Step 2:
Watch on as the situation deteriorates.
As "crisis" turns to "gloom", do as little as you can get away with.
Step 3:
From wiki: "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
Butler confesses that during his decades of service in the United States Marine Corps: I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested." Smedley-Butler
Today a new generation of racketeers are "standing down/standing by".
1
-
Because "Poland" was merely a means to an end. To divide continental Europeans, and effected at Versailles.
-------------
Who gains if there is disunity everywhere else in the world? The deceivers, obfuscators, narrative creativity fans, spinners, framers, all the way over to the outright liars (by omitting). All those who wish to gain from the division of others, will twist themselves into a knot in order to AVOID answering.
It is their entire nature. Avoid unity everywhere, avoid answering questions, avoid addressing the effects of their own politics, avoid addressing the effects of their own actions, AVOID, VETO, DENY, BLOCKADE... and then remain quiet with regards to the roles they played in fostering divisions all over the globe, even within their own peoples...
This can only be achieved from a unique position of the higher ground: geography/power. It has nothing to do with being "right".
Most of our history is too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture. After around 1900, Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, ALL Europeans lost. WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy or "Who is the top dog in Western Europe?", and a balance of power between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and Great Britain off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted. WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that the naval powers (GB and the USA) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination (see footnote). Side with the weaker power, to AVOID unity and a single great power rising in Europe.
The Big Picture. Yet, for you, the little minion, they have neatly "compartmentalized" the history lesson you must rote-learn for class...
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quite or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
In the end ALL Europeans lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After the Cold War this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards. The new "Iron Curtain" will soon be declared, under some or other fancy term, to divide the eternal "good guys" and the new "bad guys".
Just remember that there will always be a "bad guy" waiting for you. All you have to do, is to believe the story...
Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain.
1
-
1
-
"God" is the original "divider" using favoratism ("chosen ones"). The technique is to do the exact opposite as stated in the 10 Commandments, thereby initiating the divide-and-rule technique of gain: lie, steal, ki!!, bow down to money and other human beings, idolize wealth, idolize man-made systems, and covet the resources below the feet of others, tgen bear false witness with regards to what they initiated...
》》》》》》》》》》》》》
The powerful have used the strategy of divide-and-rule for thousands of years to drive a wedge between peoples.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe noted back then: "Divide and rule, calls the politician; unite and lead, is the slogan of the wise."
Some politicians and rulers may do this innocently and without thinking, but most know exactly what they are doing with their divisive tongues and their line-drawing divisions. It is their most successful technique that allows them to rule over us by preventing greater unity among people. This allows them to skim off enormous wealth from the gross national product that actually belongs to all people. If it is important to you, forward this message to others. Unite with those you are ordered to hate, according to Goethe because this is the counter strategy of "the wise". We should not allow them to continue winning in the same way for the next thousand years.
Divide-and-rule.
Draw lines, then set the people up against each other.
If there is a problem, blame somebody else.
That is the historical Albion's way.
Incredible how many can be deceived for so long.
Before 1945 it was mainly the British- and French Empires which kept conflicts alive by drawing lines in favor of one group over the other. The lines were often randomly drawn through tribes, through religious- or ethnic groups, to favor either the one, then the other. This created volatile hot spots of ethnic conflicts to use as pretext for intervention and occupation as the moral "rule maker". After 1945 the USA simply took over.
The New Testament is the antithesis.
1
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS/GLOBALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS/MILITARISTS. Their branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@2chrisby I'm actually a centrist, so I don't mind people who wear MAGA/KAG caps. It's a free world.
I'm actually a vegetarian, not a vegan, so I do "exploit animals" lol But, I buy products which ensure a maximum possible comfort for the animals which are kept for our benefit, and do not support cruelty.
As far as my wife: she's cute, and a teacher. No idea were you are going with that thought...
I assume you guys are happy bearing the full tax load for roads, schools, defence, the police and all these other common goods of society as a whole, while billionaires get off lightly....
They (billionaire elites, both the elitist "Demoncrats" and "Republicons") are milking you and me (aka "middle class") like a cow.
Their divide and rule agenda has us arguing, while they skim the cream off the top.... smart people, very smart people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dreasbn Most peoole who have imperialist inclinations will never admit it because they are too cowardly to be honest.
And most Westerners who are ideologues don't even know they are ideologues.
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the leadup to WW1 and WW2, there was another "new power", whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership..."
Or "maybe they won't notice if we sneak up on them..."
While European countries were squabbling and fighting, US leaders were very good at "biding time" and "keeping a low profile"...
https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-american-century-what-was-really-behind-it
...until they were strong enough to eclipse "the old", and not to care anymore.
With the leverage geography gave them (distance from squabbling Europeans), plus a drastically increasing power, as technology shrunk the world, they knew they would just have to wait long enough until the eternally squabbling Europeans had torn themselves to shreds.
Because in the arsenals of M-A-I-N there was another "weapon".
Well-known at the time, and formulated into words by John Quincy Adams: "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country: One is by sword and one is by debt."
Washington DC: If your rivals are making a mistake, don't interrupt them...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "system" is not "broken."
The "system" functions exactly as intended, and exactly as desired by the uber-1%ters in positions of wealth and power.
The "system" intentionally sets up states against states, countries against countries, entitities against entities, people against people, neighbors against neighbors, class against class, faction against faction...
The "system" is intentional, perpetual, and is divide-and-rule.
It does exactly what it has intended to do for centuries: set up the default ingroups against the default outgroups, then then the elites/establishment rule over the division.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join up...
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest long-term contributing factor for WW1 was the west's attacks on the Ottoman Empire.
Under constant threat of attack at the fringes (Libya, Egypt, Balkans, etc.), the Ottomans were looking for a protector in Europe and found one in Wilhelm II.
A strong alliance would have protected the Ottoman Empire from further western aggression.
Paris and St. Petersburg wanted to avoid this, at all costs...
For a close alliance between Berlin-Vienna-Budapest-Constantinople to become effective, land access was a prequisite...
Pesky Serbia was in the way, and gave Vienna a perfect pretext for war, by supporting a terrorist organisation (The Black Hand).
Just imagine, if the Ottoman Empire had simply been left alone, in peace, to develop or fall apart naturally...
As always, the vultures of history cause wars by their own actions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matsjonsson9492 The mass shooter "pledged allegiance" to ISIL.
Apart from that, he had no connections to terrorist organisations.
ISIL neither trained, funded, bought the weapons, organized the attack, or was in any other way connected to the shooting.
Yes, terrorist organisations have few problems obtaining weapons (Charly Hebdo Paris attack), but loners who self-identify as terrorists couldn't buy such weapons in Europe, or most other western countries.
On all accounts, he acted by himself, bought his own weapons and ammo, and carried out the attacks...despite being a raging loon with anger issues his entire life.
I don't get your point.
Unless you state it, so what is your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matsjonsson9492 Here, some more "mumbo jumbo" :-)
Dispositional vs Situational Attribution
1. Dispositional Attribution
Dispositional attribution assigns the cause of behavior to some internal characteristic of a person, rather than to outside forces.
When we explain the behavior of others we look for enduring internal attributions, such as personality traits. This is known as the fundamental attribution error.
For example, we attribute the behavior of a person to their personality, motives or beliefs.
2. Situational Attribution
The process of assigning the cause of behavior to some situation or event outside a person's control rather than to some internal characteristic.
When we try to explain our own behavior we tend to make external attributions, such as situational or environment features.
Or, in other words:
When your American heroes go into war, kill civilians, bomb innocents, rape or sniper teenagers for fun, etc., etc., etc., its always "oh, our poor boys, look at what war did to them" but if its the other way around, then it's always " oh they are such horrible people"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Revealing capitalist gain systems: "Mr. Brown, do you mean to tell me you would let (workers) work until they dropped dead?"
Corporate CEO Lewis H Brown: "Yes. We save a lot of money that way."
Source: Charles Roemer, a Johns Manville employee recalling what Brown said in a deposition. Topic: an already known deadly health risk posed by asbestos in the lung aka mesothelioma, and the associated almost 100-year lasting coverup attempts by DuPont, etc.
This is not just some obscure example out of context, or the proverbial anecdotal evidence, but as thousands of similar examples have shown, is systemic.
The disinformation playbook regarding coverups and corporate 101 of denial and business as usual, even against scientific evidence of the harm caused by own policies/products.
The Fake: Conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research.
The Blitz: Harass scientists who speak out with results or views inconvenient for industry.
The Diversion: Manufacture uncertainty about science where little or none exists.
The Screen: Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies.
The Fix: Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy.
These are all typical divide and rule strategies, which are employed on all tiers of systems intent on aggressive gain, which are typical of all sysyrms of gain, including capitalist and democratic systems. The technique is more than adequately explained in the below comments section, and the similarities between the systems of "capitalism/corporatism" and "democracy/globalism" can be examined in meta studies. These systems are systemically infested by sociopaths and psychopaths of all kinds, who who put interests and profit first, above all else.
Key words for further research:
1) 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
2) Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
3) The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
4) Dr Namie's research revealing the "Four Bully Types"
A large portion of our fellow human beings perceive these as valid traits to achieve the own political and personal priorities. "Might is right", and "end justifies the means" are still axioms of so-called superiority. There is also no reason to believe that any other system which promises power, will not attract similar numbers of bullies and psychopaths.
Reality: Liberal democracies and capitalist gain models and the pleasing narratives they spread, attract psychos like moths to the flame, and most human beings wouldn't be able to spot a psycho even if their lives depended on it. Most human beings living in symbiosis of systems either don't have the skill to recognize bad actors, nor the inclination to remove them since it is tangentially beneficial to own favored systems which affords the own good life, or have become directly entrapped by the gain models (pyramidal shaped hierarchies) lead by such bad actors. It doesn't seem to bother sufficient decent people enough to make such management styles which lead to the direct and indirect deaths of millions around the world impossible (effect a stopper against such models de jure or de facto). Indeed, based on observation, and looking back in history it can therefore be concluded that such behavior is only given a slap on the wrist, and therefore continues in so-called "good empires". Studies have shown that models based on intent of gain have rates of people with psychopathic tendencies as high as 20%. Compare that reality to the average for a normal society, or usual non-gain models of cooperation, which is around a 1% psycho rate.
There is no reason to believe other models of intent of gain (like politics) do not have similar high rates of psychos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA and divide Europe and rule the world...
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
Regarding in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's leaders, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement, amongst other less "valuable" suitors (like Germany, see below comment), was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped in to avoid any form of continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below).
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises" :-)
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below comment explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
"Right or wrong" is of course easily and neutrally determined by "putting oneself in the shoes" of others.
When it came to "little nations being thrown to crocodiles", own interests came first.
Principles went overboard.
What aided in dividing Europe came first. The independence of little nations? Not so much...
Washington DC: "Principles like we showed in 1905? Nah. Let's ruffle some European feathers."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Obviously, the only mistake France ever made was choosing GB as a "friend".
When it comes to history, it doesn't take long for historians large and small, to appear on the scene with "shouda done"-logic. Of course, everybody else "shouda just" done this or done that, then the world "wouda been" such a gweat place...
Japan for example.
Japan suffered from a geographical dilemma typical of powers which lacked the ability (economy/industry) to focus on one strategy, like France.
Just like France, which also had (a result of geography) political forces which divided economic/industrial/financial power between a "navy league" of supporters, and an "army league", resulting in both being less powerfull.
Japan, as an island, should have concentrated on the navy at the expense of the army, just like GB which was also an island. Its failure was trying to do both, at the expense of her own population (domestic economy).
If one sees the logic of that:
Same with France.
So where are the historians pointing out that France "coulda" started a rapprochement with Germany after "Francophobe"-Bismarck took his hat, thereby enabling France to concentrate on its navy and its empire?
Obviously, with a treaty in its pocket, there would be no need for such a powerful army.
France instead "chose" Russia, thinking that there would be more "in it" for herself (imperialism).
End effect 50 years later, is that it went down.
Some would say that this was a good thing.
"Obviously", millions dying to "end colonialism" was a great thing, since no other option ever ever ever existed...
So.
Back to square one.
Where are these "shouda done" historians stating that France should have simply morphed its own empire into a "franc block of equals" (economic/military block of equal partners), avoiding their own bloody colonial/decolonisation history altogether, which would even have made Machiavelli very happy in his grave indeed...
Of course, according to the "finger pointers", it's only always and ever only the other guy who always only ever "shouda done" something different.
Never the own leaders.
Never point back at the own self, or "best friends"...
The above is of course the "false dilemma", stating that the own "dear leaders" only and ever always had that 1 choice, and made the right one, while everybody else was always just "wrong/evil".
From wiki: "A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives, presenting the viewer with only two absolute choices when in fact, there could be many. For example, a false dilemma is committed when it is claimed that, "Stacey spoke out against capitalism; therefore, she must be a communist". (end of quote)
The truth is of course that everybody always had multiple choices at most times in history, and own leaders simply did not choose correctly, but were enticed by their "darker side" to step towards the wrong side of history.
France's main mistake was not Mers el Kebir, but choosing GB as a "best friend" looooong before WW1.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hvern0n LOL. No. He was a TERRIBLE strategists.
Luckily there were a few saner people around to reign him in.
1940 = Operation Winfried led to Nazi invasion of Norway (1941/42 troops stationed here invaded the SU and aircraft based here sank hundreds of Allied ships bound for Murmansk)
1941 = withdrawal of troops from N. Afr. to Greece (which had already defeated the Italians), meant costly N.Afr. campaigns right up to 1943. The Italians would have already folded in 1941, and Tripoli taken, not for the decision to divert troops to Greece.
1941 = sent 2 battleships into an airspace under Japanese control (Prince of Wales/Repulse)
1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the ENTIRE British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was RAW MATERIALS which limited German industrial production).
1943 = The ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that ONLY soldiers and tanks created FACTS. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tuban plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
I could carry on for a few more hours, but my fingers are tiring ...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is not about controlling thoughts.
Of course PragerU is not going to point out that Chow offered unsolicited advice about her own lifestyle, stating that it is to be considered "good and true", then linked it to a political decision that she made which impacted the lives of others ("simulated" in a college environment, of course).
[bear in mind, she ignored the "separation of church and state"]
Here's the deal:
People aspiring to politics, should keep their opinions to themselves, and honor the separation of church and state.
The Declaration of Independence grants every American the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness". Whether it agrees with Madam Chow's lifestyle, is irrelevant, and she should keep her "advice" to herself...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
INDIA
Growing up in South Africa, one is quickly introduced to the concept of "dual loyalties" in the form of a joke or a cartoon: that of the "soutpiel". Every child knew it, and joked about it. I'll leave to the reader to ask a South African friend what that means. In a nutshell, it is the dual loyalty of people living in Africa, with their loyalties divided between Europe and Africa, meaning that their...ahem...the "future" was left dangling in the Atlantic Ocean.
Every child in South Africa knew it, but not every child understood it.
Granted, it took me a while, and not until I reached the age of reason in my twenties.
"SOUTPIEL": A GRAND STRATEGY/GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Note that first and foremost, the jokers in South Africa actually became a victim of their own misguided logic: whilst the old immigrants were finger pointing at the new British immigrants with mixed loyalties from Great Britain after the 1820s, they were actually of mixed loyalty themselves on another tier. The Boers' hearts might have been beating in Africa, but in their minds they were still better Europeans. Therefore they never managed the close relationships on equal footing, or at eye level, to those they subjected (indigenous black tribes). Then, much later they were overpowered by exactly this same misguided logic they had previously imposed on their neighbours whom they wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule and wealth (divide-and-rule onto and over the weaker local tribes, easily divided using tribalism). Unlike South American empires (Aztecs/Incas), who had not an iota of knowledge of the European Empires and their ability to REACH globally, for the South African strategists there was NO excuse. They should have known what future they themselves should have constructed for Southern Africa, because they had full access to the histories of the lands they originally came from (Europe). The "dividers" of a geographical region are hardly ever open to any suggestions of systemic UNITY/CONCORD, if they themselves GAIN from DIVISION/DISCORD, until they are later divided themselves, and subjected. The story of mankind. Can we blame the indigenous black tribes for not uniting when the first white settlers arrived in their territories? No, because just like the indigenous Native Americans, these individual tribes simply lacked the organisation and technology to observe/analyse beyond their own limited horizons. For the Boers, who HAD this knowledge, their own ideology acted as a block in the own brains. The land borders were shaped in the brains of "superior white man" (sic.), not on the map, which then later backfired. Because of a lack of combined African UNITY, justice, power, and a fair distribution of wealth and land, by ALL inhabitants and FOR all inhabitants (round tables), a bigger "DIVIDER" came along and ruled them all after the Second Boer War...
Unlike after the French came to the Cape Colony and the Boers simply "trekked" their way out, when the British Empire came for them, there was nowhere left for the Boers to run to, since they had settled and had been surrounded on all sides by European empires (British Empire, and Portugal/Mozambique).
The above can also serve as template for the Levant/Middle East, and all the artificial borders drawn by empires OVER the peoples living there. Just like Southern Africa (region), West Asia had MORE THAN sufficient resources to create a decent lifestyle for ALL the inhabitants, and therefore ask yourself the critical question "Qui Bono?" if there is an "Apartheid"-style division by a few, for the benefit of a few? (Apartheid = divide-and-rule, as top-down implementation)
Southern Africa = Between the sea and the sea (Indian/Atlantic) and should have included ALL peoples who lived here. The "barriers" were in the brain, to the detriment of all when the "dividers" came.
Arabian Peninsula = Between the sea and the sea (Mediterranean/Indian Oceans) and should have included ALL peoples who lived here. The "barriers" were in the brain, to the detriment of all when the "dividers" came.
Historically, who gained from DIVISION?
Who would have gained from a fair UNITY in Southern Africa, and on the Arabian Peninsula, when the "empires" came?
Surprized that the entire text is headed "INDIA" but doesn't contain a single word related to India?
Oh yes, it does. Because it is exactly the same technique a bigger outside empire employed on the Indian subcontinent: the divide-and-rule technique, the most powerful force on the planet.
----------------------------------------------
Now.
Look over the horizon. Eurasia. When carrying out a geopolitical analysis, do not make the same mistakes as Africa's black tribes, and the Boers, and Native Americans, and Incas and Aztecs, and the Chinese kingdom during their "Century of Humiliation", and many many more all over the world, who all failed to look past the limited horizons open to them. YOUR "horizons" are given to you by the texts in your own history books, which intend to LIMIT your horizon, not open it.
Treaty of Versailles = Divide and rule of and over neighbours (Europe/Eurasia), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbours whom the dividers wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weakened local systems who "lost the war" and which they wished to create top down). European leaders who did not understand the logic of Chesterton's fence, and destroyed what they did not understand. Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such agreements/accords?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Chesterton%27s_fence
Abrahamic Accords = Divide and rule of and over direct neighbours (Arabian Penisula), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbours whom they wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weaker local systems). Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such agreements/accords?
The leaders of West Asia are all "soutpiele" as long as they bow down to outside interests and value their own vested interests before the interests of the entire region (oil resources which had turned into US/EU/Swiss assets for a few over the span of 50 years, past the majority of the own peoples).
One of the biggest misconceptions of history is the ability of the ideologically/systemically indoctrinated to view themselves as unique, whereas as a general rule their own histories rhyme with other historical events, based on the systemic analysis. The will to keep the own systems APART from their neighbours (divided by ideology and rulings) always backfires, when one is no longer "King of the Mountain" (strategy of power). By the time everything implodes, the rulers/dividers are long gone, having previously brought their own wealth and families to safe havens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was peace, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces and walks off wit GAIN, when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
>>>
The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
>>>
The people of the Americas, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people into "ingroups". In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the USA's power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS. Eden was a status quo divided by lies and deceit. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the two Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly are two cheeks of the same gold-plated hind which sets out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, is the mirror of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets and becomes successful it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances.
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
It's divide-and-rule today, and it was divide-and-rule 20 years ago, it was divide-and-rule 50 years ago, it was the same strategy 100 years ago, and 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the locals were too weak/divided to unite.
1
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@m00nch11d Betrayed came at a price.
Because there was the big picture...and this is how the little piece of the puzzle called "Mers el Kebir" fit into it.
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, neither totally destroying Germany, nor dissing France, was either wise or in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings.
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matsjonsson9492 Your life in Sweden is not determined by Swedish politicians.
In exactly the same way Sweden became a victim of WW1 (Google to find out about the food shortages as a result of the British long-distance blockade of northern Germany, aimed at Germany, but AFFECTING the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden too), Sweden has become a victim of US foreign policy decisions, predominantly the illegal (unsanctioned by the rest of the world) decision to invade Iraq in 2003, which lead to the sh*tstorm in the ME today, and a TON of refugees.
Both in WW1, AND after 2015, Sweden became a victim of decisions made elsewhere (causal).
Most of these didn't go to America. Logically, they took the shorter route to Europe because swimming to the USA would have been a bit difficult...
Sweden WILL become a victim of US foreign policy AGAIN, if the US right wing get their way. I asked you to Google PNAC, and the ideology that these people have that the USA should "rile the world", by ANY means possible, with war if need be.
They want a war in Iran, and if it happens you will see a NEW wave of refugees coming to Europe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics.
The real question that should be asked, and therefore the premise of any debate is: Was it wise at the time?
To which the simple answer is "no".
They ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south. Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
1
-
Under the new Trump admin of Neocon imperialists, the USA will pull out of NATO and leave the EU like "Uriah" on the frontlines, to face Russia by themselves.
Read the strategy: it is more than 2,000 years old, but Europeans still don't get that the USA is "not your friend" (loosely quoting Henry Kissinger). There will be sufficient numbers of Americans cheering and banner waving the resulting "just in isolation"-narrative. Chanting their "Let those European warmongers fight again, nothing to do with me..."-slogans. Just like there will always be sufficient numbers of Americans to cheer and banner wave for almost ANY strategy and practically ANY narrative. Don't subvert your own safety to the American people. They are as clueless as everybody else with regards to geopolitics and grand strategy. Don't enshrine your own future to self-centred people who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag, yet they strut around as if the entire world owes them something. Also do not rely on the "sane half" of American citizens to "save you," for they are as powerless against their own government, as YOU are against yours. All equally distracted by own problems, ignorant of world affairs, indifferent to world affairs, or simply complacent when their state chooses yet more war in eternal cycles of "yet more war" these past 250 years.
The war in the Ukraine is to a great extent a war of Washington DC's own making. Let's not forget that the current Trump admin, was the past Trump admin (2017-2021) while the encroaching/encircling of Russia/China was continuously implemented, thereby creating DIVISION in Europe/Eurasia. Whatever POTUS rules the WH, is completely irrelevant, because the standing grand strategy and geopolitical policy which has historically given the ruling classes their wealth, is regardless of who is the figurehead.
To recognize that, we must look at what did NOT happen after around the year 2000, which was full Washington DC support for a comprehensive European security agreement (incl. Russia), which then lay the foundation for the crisis/war escalating events after 2014. No amount of cherry picking and finger pointing will deflect from what is the reality: specific Washington DC/Pentagon/NATO actors did not WANT it.
Now, under Trump, they will withdraw, and leave Europeans in the crosshairs, because European leaders are far too disoriented to realize they've been scammed...again.
"Always look for the fool in the deal. If you don't find one, it's you." - Mark Cuban
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The price for a "flattened Germany" would be paid after WW2.
Of course, Germany as a "power", benefited the British Empire.
With this "power" wiped out, Empire became indefensible.
Empire's "fwiends"?
Of course, they had their own agendas.
Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
[Google: The American_Century]
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
[britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
[Google: Operation_Unthinkable 1944]
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
Stalin quickly and instinctively figured out that Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
[Google: Percentages_agreement Churchill and Stalin]
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. Here's Greece. I'll take the rest, including your friends Poland 100%. What are you going to do about it?"
1
-
1
-
@avniceylan7322 Turkiye will be better off aligning with China and Russia, then to work towards creating stability in the ME. Via economic bonds, infrastructure development, and brokered security agreements.
The USA/collective West must be squeezed out of the ME.
Their hundred year old policies of "divide and rule," starting with WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration) have brought the peoples of the ME nothing but crises, wars, division...
The root cause being the wish of outsiders to CONTROL the ME, by DIVISION. Kissinger said this clearly. "Who CONTROLS the energy, can control the world..."
The ME should create regional "hubs," and built knowledge about the destructiveness of "divide and rule" into their policies. It must become common knowledge in the ME, in Africa, in Asia...
The dividers will come.
They pose as friends.
Again and again.
They make promises...
Until the end of the Age of Oil.
Oil, they wish to CONTROL.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@winstonchurchill5516 You don't "win" wars, you just "lose" less...
To "win", Churchill made a pact with the devil (Stalin) and a system called "Communism", which had sworn to bring down the western way of life...
The other "ally" was a nation whose goal it was to destroy the British Empire, and take over British corporate business interests...good ol' USA.
Would you trust a bank robber and mass murderer?
Your leaders did, and ended up FIRST signing over half the world to Stalin and his ilk, and then fighting him in the "half" that was left.
Korea (carved up at Potsdam), Vietnam, Malaysia, and hundreds of proxy wars on every continent. How many "boys" did you lose here to communist agitation?
They should have read their Bibles. You know that "reap what you sow" bit...
"Won" what?
3rd fiddle?
Broke, munching on war rations long into the fifties, defaulting on debt, squeezed like lemon by yank banks, fighting commies in the Empire, then losing it...lol
Google "The Communist Manifest" and "The Great American Century", to find out what deal Churchill signed up for...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ventriloquistmagician4735 Then I suppose you'll find the following hypothetical speech, made by some future trans politician in a position of power, slightly off...
Imagine it is the other way around: "As a LGBTQ, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true. I don't believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and that sex and marriage is meant for everybody who wants to have a little fun. Where this bill of same sex marriage crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
[Note, I took Chow's own statement, and simply changed a few words to depict the personal convictions of another human being]
So, I guess you agree with me that that sounds condescending to straight people, and that you'd choose never to make a statement like that?
Correct?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dude, don't you know that white people can do no harm?
If they become "junkies", it's "because horrible pain, you know" or "horrible doctors, caused it" or " horrible pharma industry pushing it on poor innocent white folks"...
Dude.
If a black becomes a "junkie", it's his/her own fault, weak personality, dislocated family, single moms, and bad parenting...
Seriously, dude.
Didn't you know that?
God's chosen white people are above doing anything wrong...
[LOL, heavy on the sarcasm, just kidding ✌]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If anybody wishes to know what is in store for the EU and other American "best fwiends" after 2025, look back in history to what the USA did to the British Empire after WW2, when it was bankrupt and weak. The first victim of the American Century was not as proclaimed and the generally accepted narrative of history, that "it was the USSR" (sic./Truman Doctrine, "Iron Curtain"-narrative), but the British Empire, which was cut down to size turning London from "British lion" to "poodle" in around 25 years, using economic warfare.
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500. My shoutout to the original author whose site is since removed. The information is corroborated by many similar analyses, incl. the elaborate details in Superimperialism by Michael Hudson]
A blueprint for how one Albion deceived the other, to become the "next Albion".
Pure unfettered opportunism.
After 1945 the USA used its own might as hammer and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). By 1945, Stalin in Moscow, smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and witnessing the collapse of virtually every other European power, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2. It was overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 US strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has self-centred imperialist aims and goals , one eventually destroys all alternatives, and when you try to defend everything, you'll eventually "defend nothing" (Friedrich the Great, re. a false allocation of clout and resources, in grand strategy and geopolitics).
That was preceded in geopolitics by a Washington DC shift away from a global non-interventionalist stand on international relations, towards a more active engagement in world affairs and global expansion which incl. European affairs (the study of "Offensive Realism") which started around the year 1900, symbolized by the Spanish-American War (1898). Something London lords happily signed up for with the "Great Rapprochement" (aligned and associated "friends only, no obligations", in the "interests"-reality of imperialism). London must have thought the good times were coming, alongside their "new friends" and making the rules for everybody else. Two Albions getting happily engaged...
What could possibly go wrong putting your trust in Washington DC?
AROUND THE YEAR 2000
In reality, your "friends" in capitalism over the Atlantic can't wait for history to repeat, to wait until Europe is weak again, exhausted from war, down in power, ready for the carving knives of OUTSIDE imperialism, all by the "friends" who are standing by and standing down to enter and benefit from the division and destruction they themselves greatly contributed to after the 1990s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Stop whining Americans...
From wiki
"In recent decades, the CIA has been involved in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, especially in relation to the CIA's considerations and plans to assassinate former Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba (and accusations of CIA involvement in his eventual assassination). Patrice Lumumba was the legally elected first prime minister of the independent country.[2] Lumumba was killed on January 17, 1961, at the age of thirty-five near Élisabethville, Katanga Even before the independence of the Congo, the U.S. government attempted to facilitate the election of a pro-western government by identifying and supporting individual pro-U.S. leaders.[3] The CIA was also notably involved in a campaign against Lumumba's successor, which led to his eventual imprisonment and long exile from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.[4] The CIA was also a vital part of the United States' efforts to aid Joseph Mobutu, who took control of the Congo in 1965 and renamed the country Zaire and his name Mobutu Sese Seko.[5] The CIA would work heavily with Mobutu, particularly in relation to American support for the National Liberation Front of Angola and Jonas Savimbi's National Union for the Total Independence of Angola."
It's cool to have your secret services carrying out regime change, and aiding corrupt crooks who plunder entire nations, right?
Well guess what?
Reap what you sow 'murica.
One day, everything comes back to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course we all know that the Luftwaffe had a policy called Area Bombing, directly aimed at "dehousing" civilians. Of course, the German thinker Lindemann, directed his hate at civilians, and had the leader's ear...promising him "quick victory" if cities were burned to the ground, and civilians directly aimed at...
That is why, right from the very first day of the Battle of Britain, the LW sent 1,000 bombers a night, and flattened London from one end to the other. They did it because they could. At this early stage the RAF had no AI radar, and no effective night fighters...
Therefore it was a sport, with few casualties amongst LW planes.
The night time attacks were devastating, because all effort was concentrated on attacking city centers, rather than docks, warehouses, airfields, aircraft factories...
Of course we all know that the LW didn't use X- and Y- Beam guiding systems to try and hit factories and yards at night, but aimed at the spirals of cathedrals, because it was easy.
With nothing to stand in their way, the Luftwaffe massacred hundreds of thousand of British civilians, in night time attacks.
Of course, we also know that Rotterdam and Warsaw weren't really frontline cities, defended by Dutch and Polish ground forces, and therefore we also know that it was illegal according to international law to attack these defended cities. We also know that there were no German soldiers, and no frontlines, in these cities...
We also know that the first time Nazis actually did specifically instruct a LW commander Loehr to "make an example of a city" (Belgrade), that Loehr carried out his orders to the letter, not resisting such an illegal order to directly aim the LW bombs at civilians...
Yes, we know all that...
1
-
1
-
Correct. End the War on Drugs.
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal: minor offences like being caught with a few grams of weed...
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
1
-
The time is approaching.
For 50 years after 1945 the citizens of the USA have lived the "good life" at the expense of the rest of the world in the immediate post-WW2 years, when the rest of the planet was so weak it could not avoid US institutions/military/NGOs from imposing themselves, and vacuuming off enormous gain from a position of unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL invincibility...
Now, that ratio is down to 30% of the world's wealth.
It's decreasing...
What does the USA look like today? What will it look like when this amount of wealth of the world they can vacuum off, decreases to 20%, and then 10%? When US citizens finally get closer to a "fair share" of the world's resources/wealth, and have to make do with the same amounts as everybody else, they will finally find out what level of psychopathy they have systemically enabled inside, operating from within their OWN country/state. When they can no longer vacuum off the wealth of the world, in an unfair manner (50% for us, the 6% of the planet), they will start finding out what human nature is like.
When the current 4% of the planet, have to make do with 4-5% of the world's wealth and resources as other nations come and take a fairer share of these resources for themselves, the USA will become everything they have always criticized, and finally discover they are just like everybody else.
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
Ruth Bader-Ginsburg: "To Those Accustomed to Privilege Equality feels like Oppression".
In the coming years, Americans are going to start feel soooooo "oppressed" by the 95% of the planet, who somehow had to manage with the other 50% of the wealth/resources for the fifty or sixty years after World War II.
America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this desirable disparity continues.
Set up "patterns" of European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
CONTROL the access to its own POWER.
Keep others either "down" or "out" per "rulings".
No, that isn't a "conspiracy theory".
It is "divide and rule", in different contexts, on different tiers, and in different eras of history.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
CONTROL the resources, which are the limiting factor (NOT "money" which is simply a "means" to divide)
Find volunteers and local ambitious rulers who collaborate, who "dance for money", and the sky is the limit for the dividers...
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) as the template.
The strategy to avoid unity in Eurasia, or to avoid "avoid war" (note: double negative), has been the same for the past 200 years...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@criscabrera9098 There was no way Versailles was ever going to be enforced, because after the communists started growing the SUs power, Germany was needed to "balance out" the SU.
London was not going to "enforce Versailles".
Paris would not have acted without the support of London.
Simple as that...
That makes any and every "we should done"-logic wishful thinking.
Note that if one suggests an alternative history, it should at least be viable at the time. Enforcing Versailles wasn't viable.
It was neither politically desirable, nor would it have received support from populations which had just lost millions in a World War.
London aimed to "balance powers" on the continent, in an effort to protect their "Empire", and achieved exactly the opposite.
London's standpoint, by own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell according to policy = the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
1
-
@criscabrera9098 Re. "Why London would never have enforced Versailles."
Today we should be careful in criticizing past political decisions though, based on hindsight. Today, we can turn to page 434 of our history books, and go "well, we shoulda done that", or "we shouldn't have done that".
Past leaders didn't have that option of course :-)
London used the rivalries of the continental powers, because its means were limited by reality (financial, industrial limitations). Since GB was an island, with a global empire to protect, obviously the Royal Navy was going to get the lion's share of resources.
The protection of "Empire" (British land forces = army came second) was achieved indirectly, by "balancing out" the continental powers against each other.
Furthermore, the focus on Hitler/Fascism is what IMO is a crude misuse of hindsight. The British Empire had other worries, and only today's hindsight makes it possible to focus on Germany/Fascist powers, and a certain "we shoulda done that"-assertion.
At the time, and correctly so, communism was seen as just as big a threat to the colonial powers, and colonialism in general.
But at the time, say until early-1938, Germany was not considered a danger by most British leaders. In fact it was simply considered a "tool" to out-balance other continental powers, and an equally rapidly industrialising/re-arming SU.
Communism was aimed at the the colonial power's impoverished masses, and an opposite pole to aggressive communist expansion was felt appropriate.
For further reading, I suggest googling:
- the Communist Manifest (the intent was voiced to destroy the west)
- the Comintern (a union of international communists)
- Soviet re-armament in the Five Year Plans 1928 and 1933 (note, long before Hitler).
- soviet Deep Battle/Operations (the SU version of "Blitzkrieg")
- strategic bombers/paratroopers (both offensive weapons systems, not defensive)
- Communist takeover of Mongolia
- The Soviet invasion of China 1934 (Xinjiang)
- The Great Leap/Mao (communist subversive warfare in action, with the display of the "modus operandi" of a possible future for western empires)
- Stalin's "Big Fleet Program", starting 1935 for a Blue Water Navy according to Mahan.
By the mid-30s, the SU was the world's most powerful military.
Stalin had around a million soldiers, and around 20,000 tanks and 15,000 frontline aircraft. More than the rest of Europe combined.
Today, we know what GB's leaders could only have assessed and worried about back throughout the 1930s...
[See:foreignaffairs(dot)com/articles/china/1950-10-01/china-stalins-grand-strategy]
Stalin intended for his particular brand of communism (Stalinism) to rise, and take over one slow step at a time. His expansion, could only come at the expense of western influence.
As an Empire with millions of poor and unsatisfied subjects, to whom communism might seem very appealing, London obviously felt that allowing Germany to rearm as a potential future ally in case Stalin tried something funny, might be forthcoming.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Under the new Trump admin of Neocon imperialists, the USA will pull out of NATO and leave the EU like "Uriah" on the frontlines, to face Russia by themselves.
Read the strategy: it is more than 2,000 years old, but Europeans still don't get that the USA is "not your friend" (loosely quoting Henry Kissinger). There will be sufficient numbers of Americans cheering and banner waving the resulting "just in isolation"-narrative. Chanting their "Let those European warmongers fight again, nothing to do with me..."-slogans. Just like there will always be sufficient numbers of Americans to cheer and banner wave for almost ANY strategy and practically ANY narrative. Don't subvert your own safety to the American people. They are as clueless as everybody else with regards to geopolitics and grand strategy. Don't enshrine your own future to self-centred people who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag, yet they strut around as if the entire world owes them something. Also do not rely on the "sane half" of American citizens to "save you," for they are as powerless against their own government, as YOU are against yours. All equally distracted by own problems, ignorant of world affairs, indifferent to world affairs, or simply complacent when their state chooses war.
The war in the Ukraine is to a great extent a war of Washington DC's own making. Let's not forget that the current Trump admin, was also the past Trump admin (2017-2021) while the encroaching/encircling of Russia/China was continuously implemented, a standing grand strategy and geopolitical policy regardless of who is the figurehead in the WH.
To recognize that, we must look at what did NOT happen after around the year 2000, which was full Washington DC support for a comprehensive European security agreement (incl. Russia), which then lay the foundation for the crisis/war escalating events after 2014. No amount of cherry picking and finger pointing will deflect from what is the reality: specific Washington DC/Pentagon/NATO actors did not WANT it.
Now, under Trump, they will withdraw, and leave Europeans in the crosshairs, because European leaders are far too disoriented to realize they've been scammed...again.
"Wise men profit more from fools than fools from wise men; for the wise men shun the mistakes of fools, but fools do not imitate the successes of the wise." - Cato
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nathancochran4694 Then we are 100% in agreement as to "who started it".
Both the Nazis and the commies, intent on eclipsing the west, and their "empires", spheres of interests, and "markets.
Where we disagree is the question of: Two enemies. How to deal with it?
London started off wrong, with a false dichotomy.
A false narrative, popularized with the slogan "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", which gives the reader the impression that there were only two options: "friend" or "enemy".
WRONG.
There were different and better options (for example "co-belligerence" rather than alliance).
Reality: once the "common enemy" was defeated, Europe was still left with "an enemy" (communism).
I implore you to read my top comment from 17 hours ago, and reply there to what a better grand strategy for a "two enemies, which also hate each other"-scenario is.
Not only back then. At all times.
1
-
@nathancochran4694 My point is that WW2 was "declared wisely" (for a good reason) but "implemented unwisely".
Up till about early-1942 there was little different London could have done.
It's about the decision to "flatten Germany" taken in February 1942.
At this point it was somewhat clear that the Axis would lose the war, because the USA had entered it. Notice how the same historians who tell us "the war was going badly for the Allies in 1942, so GB had to destroy German cities", will also tell you that Churchill carried out somersaults of joy when the USA joined, knowing that the end outcome was clear now.
There was hardly a scenario under which the Allies could lose.
Even on the other side, Hitler and the Nazi strategists admitted it. Hitler admitting that he didn't know how to win the war, because the USA was indefatigable.
That isn't hindsight.
It was a lack of foresight, which lead to a failed policy of "Area Bombing" entire cities into ruin, by people who should have known at the time of the Empire's precarious financial situation (Churchill was a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer).
They made this decision consciously.
They knew that a strategic air force was just about the most expensive way to wage war in the book.
Bottom line?
While the USA could afford it, GB couldn't.
So as far as I'm concerned. No excuses.
There were many and different things London could have done which were far more uncontroversial even at a time of war (1942) than to wage war on civilians as a policy (note: policy).
After 1942, it was policy to destroy Germany as a "power" in the balance of power scheme.
It was outrageously expensive.
GB couldn't afford it (known at the time).
It wasn't necessary (as pointed out by US policy makers).
They did it anyway.
They failed.
And "reaped" bankruptcy after the war (a large part, some estimates up to 50% of financial resources, due to "Area Bombing" entire cities).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS/GLOBALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS/MILITARISTS. Their branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
1
-
@BlueNickel26 Yes I agree with you.
Apparently "some people did some things"...
"Since World War II, during a supposed golden age of peace, the United States military has killed or helped kill some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 84 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. The United States is responsible for the deaths of 5 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and over 1 million just since 2003 in Iraq.
Since 2001, the United States has been systematically destroying a region of the globe, bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, not to mention the Philippines. The United States has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces in three-quarters of them."
[davidswanson]
1
-
1
-
1
-
The point...
It's what happens if you make the wrong friends.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gerd
Your essay and observations almost perfectly matches the Bread and Circus technique employed by those in power,onto the powerless "masses"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
... which allows corporations to do as they please by keeping the masses well-fed and satisfied with cheap food and cheap entertainment. As long as there is no "guilotines moment", the ruling class, the "haves", the "1%-ters", the establishment or upper class, or whatever one might term them, are safe as houses within their geographical advantage which money and influence buys them, never in danger/fear of becoming the victim of their own strategies.
Juvenal: “Give them bread and circuses and they will never revolt.”
It is a strategy of power which never ages...
Marcus Tullius Cicero: "The evil was not in bread and circuses, per se, but in the willingness of the people to sell their rights as free men for full bellies and the excitement of the games which would serve to distract them from the other human hungers which bread and circuses can never appease."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neuralvibes The Congress of Vienna was a wise attempt at peace, by "drawing lines on the map", and "division of power", and the creation of "geostrategic barriers".
Wise, because it ensured relative peace for almost a hundred years.
In a nutshell, it was a "top down" decision, which resulted in little opposition from the taxpayers, which were "carved up" by "lines on the map"...
Wise also, because said "taxpayers" did not consider it unusual at the time. They had no voice, little in the way of representation (influence) and even more important, no awareness. In short, they (the rulers) did nothing wrong, considering the situation/reality which existed at the time...
Leaders who ignored realities of changing times, are not "wise".
Because something changed between 1815 and 1919.
The people changed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_liberalism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
Not acknowledging that, would create the foundation of future conflict.
Note also that it is irrelevant of whether one personally identifies with a movement which originates from the people, and is spread within the people from the bottom up, or not.
One can ignore or deny reality, but reality won't ignore you.
You will end up in a trench, shooting at some other bloke in his trench, because leaders who don't want to accept the reality of changing times.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The question is not "What are the differences?"
Ask yourself, "What unites them?" Answer: THEY. ARE. ALL. "-ISMS".
Ideologically indoctrinated politicians who lie and the warriors they incite to fight to spread their ideologies are the root cause of all evil in the world. One doesn't even have to infer much, since they will tell you straight in your face.
According to the dictionary, an ideology is an organized set of political or economic ideas... for example, "democracy" and "capitalism," both of which are ideologies.
If one tries to list all the ideologically inspired lies and deceptions by politicians who have started/bandwagoned wars to (quote) "make the world safe for democracy" the list will be long and the victims uncountable, because the ideologues don't even bother to count them.
Except of course when it's "the other side". Then they list them exactly, and continuously create Hollywood movies and TV documentaries about the "other sides", and there are many.
Millions of deaths and total ruin emanating from London and Washington DC to spread their ideologies and empires, and that's just the wars since 1945. Not to mention those before that. It is futile to educate the masses who are going into the trenches about the harmful effects of war. People already know it, but they are powerless against the forces that are leading entire regions into war. These top politicians, who sit in their sinecures in peacetime and have bunkers in wartime, have no intention of bearing the consequences of their decisions.
Carl Jung on psychoanalytic dicta: "If you cannot understand why someone did something, look at the consequences and infer the motivation," and similarly, Jordan Peterson: "If you can't understand why someone is doing something, look at the consequences of their actions, whatever they might be, and then infer the motivations from their consequences."
The so-called USA/collective West is inundated with ideologues.
Their masses of "finger-pointers" are ideologically indoctrinated to think they have never done anything (systemically) wrong, and can do no wrong. A "finger pointer" is literally either too dumb, or so pre-occupied with "finger pointing" that they cannot acknowledge own (systemic) flaws, and therefore must asume everybody else is also a "finger pointer" (psychological projection). Thereby, they supply the very reasoning WHY you must balance them out (systemically) in order to "ensure the own manifest rights" are protected (Polybius).
Balancing is "weight" against "weight". "Power" against "power". "Force" against "force."
The hordes of totally indoctrinated "empire fans" actively or passively gish-galloping in support of their systemic enterprises and show enamoured support, and thereby actually provide the evidence for WHY only a multipolar world determined by laws, is the only way to achieve widespread peace. These people DO NOT CARE about anybody but themselves, or the own preferred man-made systems, which is why they must be balanced out.
The systems they have enabled, inscribed, stated as law, or constituted, have little to do with being fair, which is why one must meet force with force.
The system favouring ideological expansion and imperialism means the "sane halves" within the system of democracy/republicanism (note: just another "-ism"), are powerless to stop the beast...
1
-
Even "friends" are not safe:
PART I
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), (§§§ see PART II, below) the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed." SOURCE: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive
US strategist in these think tanks lay out the scheme of what was going to be the new post-war reality, as a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" for the USA to control. Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under US supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.)
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." Note, all words in quotes were actual words used IN THIS OFFICIAL US DOCUMENT, and the thesis and its quoted sources can all be downloaded for free, from the www, and using these key words provided for your search engine.
---------------------------------
After around 1940, ... (quote) "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident (§§§footnote) – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. *Within this framework the role of France, Germany and ENGLAND of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations..."
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world."
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.", Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
1
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
1
-
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
1
-
The West's obsession with Hitler as the "starter" of WW2, hides the fact that Stalin "the enabler" of WW2 is still viewed positively, even today.
Stalin got his first chance to "enable" a war between GB, France and the Fascist states (led by Germany) in the Spanish Civil War.
Unfortunately for Stalin, Paris/London didn't take the bait, and stayed out...
The next chance was Czechoslovakia.
His "promises" of an alliance, or "aid" was obviously another attempt to lure Paris/London into a trap.
Chamberlain defused that one...
Then there was Poland.
The minute Hitler started his threats and schemes, Stalin must have known he had Paris/London in the vice.
There would be no way either Paris or London, would/could possibly ignore or compromise any Fascist invasion of Poland.
Unlike Spain or Czechoslovakia, it was vital to the Balance of Power scheme set up in 1919.
He would enable it, then hang back and get out the popcorn and chips as the West destroyed itself in the geopolitical nightmare it had created for itself at Versailles.
1
-
POWER. DOESN'T. CARE.
Maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are trapped in a "divide and rule world", and it has been all about PROFITS and CONTROL over the people.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
@youwonder472 No. Not really :-)
Vienna was actually quite kind to Czechs.
Where do Skoda or Tatra come from?
Which money from which banks financed Pilsen, or Brno?
Why did the Czech people become such a motor of the economy?
Who built the roads, infrastructure, and education?
Then, who saw all this in 1919, and thought...."Hmmmm....how can I USE the situation to DIVIDE AND RULE?"
Do you know how divide and rule works?
So who allowed themselves to be USED as a TOOL of divide and rule?
Yes, because under the Austrian-Hungarian Empire there were actually common interests, which boosted your local economies (cities and towns which were Czech), and developed Czech lands as never before in history (late-19th century), and in 1919 political opportunist forgot all about the past recent history, and made the wrong friends.
They should have negotiated with neighbors for independence, rather than with greedy Empires 500 miles away....
You made the wrong friends in 1919.
Lesson for today?
Stick with those people you share interests with.
The EU for example, would be a good start.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politicians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct date on the timeline which is March 1939, when they did nothing.
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not in my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies. How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets have they. Me want some...me take some."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen positive relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Curb the darker aspects which create internal division.
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Be principled, or become a tool.
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up.
Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoritism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is. Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Regardless of the "system of gain" in question, which come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
Divide and rule/conquer creates "favorite sons" (Ukraine) on the one side, and "scapegoats" on the other as "default rivals/enemies" (Russia).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aswfabt Not "triggered" yet?
Seeing how most of the comments are slogans and appeals to emotion, I'll just jump into the fray ;-)
For hundreds of years, the British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations around the world. Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images"). When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets". The locals defending their own? Pfffft. Nobody cared...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps (called "penal colonies"), and terror bombing innocents called Air Policing...
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s killed their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl/Historian)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses smaller nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
1
-
Yes, the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and cute "Uncle Joe" for fools who don't understand how the world works...
Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world "you shall not have nuclear weapons!"
https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/british-nuclear-program
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
Irony and sarcasm aside, but that is some weird "special relationship" if you ask me.
A "friend" who does not even want you to have nukes, if he has some himself?
Sounds like a serious control-freak issue...
1
-
1
-
1
-
The imperialst system will try to divide BRICS. The intention of deceit is to convince those who would gain more from unity and uniting with neighbors, is that unity is "wrong," and disunity/discord is "right."
The "system" is not "broken."
The "system" functions exactly as intended, and exactly as desired by the uber-1%ters in positions of wealth and power.
The "system" intentionally sets up people against people, neighbors against neighbors, class against class, faction against faction, men against women, rich against poor...
The "system" is intentional, perpetual, and is divide-and-rule.
It does exactly what it has intended to do for centuries: set up the default ingroups against the default outgroups, then then the elites/establishment rule over the division.
As George Carlin quipped: While everybody fights, they run off with all the money.
1
-
1
-
It "started" quite innocently, way before WW2.
With a London policy.
I'm sure the British population and the inhabitants of Empire would have been happy if their toffs hadn't made Germany the enemy as a default setting.
The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting...
[britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power]
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.
It came first before all other considerations.
It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding
1) alliances
2) treaties (or no treaties)
3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord)
4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle)
5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint)
6) when to engage in arms races
7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences
Go over your history, and see its handwriting all around...
Enjoy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Only a fool would indiscriminately kill potential allies (Christians trapped in a dictatorial state), in order to save people who would stick a knife in their back as a matter of ideology the minute they got the chance to do so (Communists).
Sun Tzu said: "In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to capture an entire army, a regiment or company rather than to destroy it."
Our oh so clever leaders: Who needs wisdom, if you've got emotional argumentation?
The Western Allies "sowed" death and "reaped" 50 years of Cold War, which (as we know today) almost lead to the end of mankind on half a dozen occasions (MAD). Of course, if it hadn't been for the divide and rule policies of the previous alpha in the world (London), there need never have been "Nazis" and "commies" to fight in the first place...
In 1941, a smart leadership would have let the nazis and commies "slug it out" to mutual destruction, seeing how they were sworn enemies.
Recipe for success?
Only support the losing side as much so they don't collapse, but not enough to win outright.
Do you know who enebled WW2, because he wanted your parents to die?
Stalin.
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
Roosevelt and Stalin: leTs saVe thE cOmmieS so wE caN fIght tHem in 5 yEars...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Asking the wrong questions on a limited scope and timeline will not reveal the divide-and-rule technique.
The empire set off on the "G-G Line" from Germany to Greece, during the First Cold War after declaring war ("cold" war/1947).
It advanced to the "B-B Line" from the Baltics to the Black Sea (see footnote) after the "peace" was declared to the plebs after the 1990s, and a bright new future pwomised to all the children of history, believers...
How long do you think it will take for the empire, wriggling and writhing about ("divide-and-rule"), hopping over here and there ("pivoting") before they reach the "A-A Line"?
‐-----------
The "B-B Line".
When people start thinking in terms of dichotomies like winning/losing, left/right wing, us/them, right/wrong, unity/division, they are already all "losers."
Think in terms of a desirable outcome. If not, lose.
Outsiders fabricate the "crescent of crises" around your heartland.
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
If outsiders come from outside and start drawing lines on the map, through your homelands without asking the people who live there.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. They allow outsiders to play the cards FOR them.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS. Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Rome. London. Washington DC.
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hamas, just like every single "terrorist" organisation EVER, at any point in history ever, in any geographical location ever, by any religion ever, are always an EFFECT of oppression.
The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they created themselves with own PREVIOUS political actions, as terrorists...
Terrorism/Freedom fighting (POV) is always an "effect" not a "cause."
If you live in the west, then you (personally), or your parents, grandparents or previous generations have never ever ever fought anybody your own leaders have not personally set you up against.
Try me on this one.
Name me the war, incl. this current "War on Terror", and I'll inform you how your own government created it (aka "lay the foundation").
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is no such thing as "inner Frenchiness", only bad leadership.
And France had its share of dumb leaders, because after WW1 the USA and GB divided the "rule of the world" amongst themselves....50/50.
According to the naval geostrategist Mahan, those who rule the oceans, rule the world.
France finished WW1 with a mighty army, but was not granted the "rule" of the World Island with this army (see Heartland Theory/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History)
The control of this vital location, was unattainable for the French economy anyway, since according to one historian France had a "giant appetite, but had rotten teeth" (meaning that the willpower of their elites to rule and dominate was not matched by the economy or political landscape which was a shambles after WW1).
In other words, London had the "leverage" to control the destiny of the French Empire (via naval power), but in return France did not have the leverage to control the destiny of the British Empire (via land forces).
A bad deal, in my books...
France relinquished it's position as a first class naval power in return for "a deal" to dominate or share a few regions (Balkans, ME , Central Europe), but not the geostrategically vital Heartland (aka the "pivot" of Eurasia from which the destruction/dismantling of the British Empire by land forces was possible).
According to London, if London could not rule this herself, or by proxy, it would be divided or "balanced " amongst several rivals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But it "paid off" only for one.
The British Empire's "best fwiends" over on the other side of the Atlantic, far far away from the action, in no danger whatsoever. The American Century.
Because it's "rule the world" for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and cute "Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world works...
Ever wonder why the "best friends" over in the New World didn't sail in like heroes to help GB out in 1939 or 1940?
Because during WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
The USA said to the rest of the world, including the so-called best friends: "You shall not have nuclear weapons!
[www(dot)atomicheritage(dot)org/history/british-nuclear-program]
Read up all about that little episode...
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
So the American Century got nukes, paid for by British cash, cash, cash...
Washington DC/The American Century: "Gee thanks GB. You not only graciously financed the development of our nukes, saving us around 2 billion dollars, you also gave us your scientists to help the US develop them. Thanks "best fwiends" :-)"
That is some weird "special relationship" if you ask me.
A "friend" who does not even want you to have nukes, if he has some himself?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It all started off soooo gweat...
That "Hollywood movie Band of Brothers"-stuff.
Everyone speaking English.
The good guys becoming "best fwiends", forever and ever.
Cross my heart and hope to die...sniff, sniff...so cute.
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Aww.
So sad.
Too bad.
Lost their impure empire, and then some...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen almost all their markets.
*Yup. A very "special"...ahem..."relationship".
American Century: "Sowwie. I didden know that MARKETS and TRADE were the cornerstone of your Empire...je, je, je..."
1
-
1
-
**Footnote
London's standpoint, by own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, for those lacking the necessary comprehension skills: the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
And so they played the "balancing games".
Hop onto scale a little here, hop on the scale a little bit there.
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
How absolutely funny...
They gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Stalin: What makes you think I want to be "hopped onto" to save the British Empire?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Between "around 1900" and "around 2000," nothing has really changed in the concept of imperialist mindset. It has simply morphed and been name-branded new. Now it is the "neocon." Those who intended to use DIVISION to RULE are still the same type of people, only slightly shapeshifted. People are often confused by terminology, rather than looking at the events themselves.
RULE by DIVISION.
Set people and groups up against each other and then rule over or gain from division and polarization. They hide the strategy by inventing new terms throughout history. A counter-strategy to unravel the narrative favouring the "dividers": Look at the events or actions. Critical question: how does a minority control the narrative of a majority? How does a faraway empire, control a large group of local groups and people? Correct answer, call "them" (outgroup) a potential danger and divide them. The DIVIDED are being sown dissent upon, by the dividers from outside, in slow incremental steps.
APARTHEID EMPIRES
All historical European global empires, incl. the British Empire, were of course "Apartheid empires" since they had two/three-tier systems as default settings. If anybody thinks old tropes like "justice is blind" or "the law counts equally for all" counts in the real world, then they are in for a rude awakening: it was never about being fair.
The divide and rule system is a pyramid. It has always been, and will always be until the various bases unite and dismantle top-down rule. All top down rule systems practiced divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, just like South African systems of power did in Southern Africa, not only inside the own borders, but beyond the own borders.
Apart = separate = divide.
Divide-and-control/rule.
Gain from polarization.
To rule/control by division.
A globally operating HEGEMONY can likewise play the same divide-and-control/rule games everywhere on the globe and that the borders need never change in order to play these games. Wherever one zooms into, the "game" is exactly the same, only the actors change. They deceive their listeners with word games: borders mean nothing for the "dividers", since they themselves operate across borders, to sow division. Before 1945 the previous hegemonic powers had the clout to practice divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, just like Washington DC systems of power did in the USA, not only inside the own borders, but beyond.
To play games, the borders need never change. All it needs is POWER, a set of rules for ordering everybody else around, and a position of impunity from any setbacks.
The attitude is then that somebody else can pick up the tab if anything goes wrong, then strut about like the sun shines out of the own you-know-what, and pretend that everybody on the planet owes you something.
-------------------------------------------------
Point the finger, at those divided, and blame them for anything that goes wrong.
In the background, gain from division.
If a region cannot be infiltrated and morphed, or otherwise controlled, divide-and-destroy is implemented.
Today, our easily-deceived Western leaders in the self-proclaimed "good West" (not strategists) tell us that there will be peace, as long as everybody adheres to the belief system that "the borders may never change". Yet it is they themselves (strategists), who intend to GAIN from division elsewhere on the planet, using exactly these imposed realities. Any resistance evolving out of the attempts to divide, are simply downplayed or demonized. Everybody who changes the established borders is "evil" (unless of course, it is the own capital cities, or their proxies doing so: then it is "justified" by finger-pointing somewhere else). The own tiered systems propagating "us/them" says so, so it must be "true." Hypocrisy and lying (incl. by omission) is not a moral failure, but a strategy of power. Calling out the immoral, won't change them, since they don't care what you think, nor do they have to care, because they know they have an entire army of "D, S, A" (Henry Kissinger/censored quote) at their command, to send to the trenches while they siphon off the riches in the background...
The psychological term for when people accuse others of something they themselves have done or are doing is almost always projection when some form of gain is involved, such as politics. The allegory of "finger pointing, three fingers pointing back" is also spot on, because the "pointing finger" is mostly accompanied by very vocal theatrics, whilst the "three fingers" are kept hidden. The ancient allegory hints at causality, because own previous actions kept quiet, are also the CAUSE of the "pointing finger" the finger-pointer tries to deflect to. It is the same hand "CAUSING" and POINTING. This is not only an allegory, but also a strategy of power which politicians and other systemic gain models use to distract, misinform, obfuscate, or deflect blame: the weakest and therefore the most unworthy form of leadership ("buck passers") thus wiggle and writhe their way into power. Unfortunately weak and pathetic deceivers are usually very common in systems of democracy/capitalism. Obviously, another lesson to be learnt from the allegory is the a debater cannot reference an immoral action by one entity or group, to excuse another immoral action by another entity or group. That would give a neutral observer more information about the finger pointer than about the topic under discussion.*
Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the United States, was not only a politician but also an astute thinker. His insights into human nature are timeless and offer clear clues on how to recognize foolishness and lack of wisdom. Jefferson said that a fool can be identified by the number of mistakes he makes and the number of times he repeats them.
1. They speak without thinking (concept of "false premise" or making claims without supplying evidence, simply accepting that it is "true" because they FEEL so).
2. They ignore criticism (In contrast, Thomas Jefferson emphasized the importance of self-reflection).
3. They pretend to know everything (A wise person realizes how little he actually knows).
4. They blame others (Instead of taking responsibility for their own mistakes, fools always blame others).
5. They act impulsively (Jefferson believed in the power of deliberation and clear thinking before any action).
6. They do not respect other opinions (Intolerance and refusal to understand other perspectives are clear signs of narrow-mindedness).
7. They do not learn from the past (A fool repeats the same mistakes without learning from past experiences. Jefferson reminded that history is a teacher we should heed).
Our European leaders are fools. They did not learn from past European mistakes. They judge quickly and ignore the opinions and perspectives of others. Then defend wrong behaviour to protect own egos. They don't take responsibility for their decisions and actions, but "pass the buck" (finger pointing) to others. They blame others, or circumstances. They are convinced of their own infallibility.
Look at the jumping jacks that are romping around the capital cities in the USA/collective West. All related to the strategies of power our leaders employ, also via proxy, but then accept no responsibility for. In fact, rather than accepting responsibility, they live the life of supreme luxury, in "gardens", blaming the "jungles" they have the boot on. In case anybody FEELS triggered by the events evolving out of what they cause themselves. Only a fool believes everything a government tells them...
Plato's Cave analogy was written FOR you thousands of years ago. It's not about the "other guys".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If anybody wishes to know what is in store for the EU and other American "best fwiends" after 2025, look back in history to what the USA did to the British Empire after WW2, when it was bankrupt and weak. The first victim of the American Century was not as proclaimed and the generally accepted narrative of history, that "it was the USSR" (sic./Truman Doctrine, "Iron Curtain"-narrative), but the British Empire, which was cut down size turning London from "British lion" to "poodle" in around 25 years, using economic warfare.
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500. My shoutout to the original author's whose site is since removed.]
Pure unfettered opportunism.
After 1945 the USA used its own might as hammer and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). By 1945, Stalin (Moscow), smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and witnessing the collapse of virtually every other European power, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2. It was overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has self-centred imperialist aims and goals , one eventually destroys all alternatives, and when you try to defend everything, you'll eventually "defend nothing" (Friedrich the Great, re. a false allocation of clout and resources, in grand strategy and geopolitics).
That was preceded in geopolitics by a Washington DC shift away from a global non-interventionalist stand on international relations, towards a more active engagement in world affairs and global expansion which incl. European affairs (the study of "Offensive Realism") which started around the year 1900, symbolized by the Spanish-American War (1898). Something London lords happily signed up for with the "Great Rapprochement" (aligned and associated "friends only, no obligations", in the "interests"-reality of imperialism). London must have thought the good times were coming, alongside their "new friends" and making the rules for everybody else. Two Albions getting happily engaged...
What could possibly wrong putting your trust in Washington DC?
In reality, your "friends" in capitalism over the Atlantic can't wait for history to repeat, to wait until Europe is weak again, exhausted from war, down in power, ready for the carving knives of OUTSIDE imperialism, all by the "friends" who are standing by and standing down to enter and benefit from the destruction they themselves greatly contributed to after the 1990s...
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
In 1912, Churchill made his famous "luxury fleet"-speech...
"The purposes of British naval power are essentially defensive. We have no thoughts, and we have never had any thoughts of aggression, and we attribute no such thoughts to other great Powers. There is, however, this difference between the British naval power and the naval power of the great and friendly Empire - and I trust it may long remain the great and friendly Empire - of the USA. The British Navy is to us a necessity and, from some points of view, the US Navy is to them more in the nature of a luxury. Our naval power involves British existence. It is existence to us; it is expansion to them. We cannot menace the peace of a single US hamlet, no matter how great and supreme our Navy may become. But, on the other hand, the whole fortunes of our race and Empire, the whole treasure accumulated during so many centuries of sacrifice and achievement, would perish and be swept utterly away if our naval supremacy were to be impaired. It is the British Navy which makes Great Britain a great power. But the USA was a great power, respected and honoured all over the world, before she had a single ship...As naval competition becomes more acute, we shall have not only to increase the number of ships we build, but the ratio which our naval strength will have to bear to other great naval Powers, so that our margin of superiority will become larger and not smaller as the strain grows greater. Thus we shall make it clear that other naval Powers, instead of overtaking us by additional efforts, will only be more out-distanced in consequence of the measures which we ourselves shall take."
https://www.historynet.com/the-rise-of-the-american-navy-1775-1914.htm
I took the liberty of changing a few words in order to make a point.
I sincerely hope Winnie doesn't mind...
1
-
Yup...
Very simply answered:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy.
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
Don't be a sheep.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Feb 17, 2024 — 'If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu,' says US Secretary of State Blinken...
Remember the names of all their "lunches."
Remember all their victims.
As millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy. All around the world, millions of others like Aaron Bushell have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Eastern Europe and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The real "WW1", or first "great" war actually took place from 1803 to 1815.
In terms of scope and victims, it was mainly limited by technology. Still, despite the limited capabilities of the weapons of the times, there were more than 4 million victims, in all corners of the globe.
The first truly "global war".
Notice however how historians (correctly btw) separate this "first global war" (aka The Napoleonic Wars) into seven distinct phases, based on a scientific and exact analyses of the reasons/motivations at the time, whereas for WW1/WW2 there are attempts to create one big emotionally steered mashup.
Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, historians are of course far more candid re. "motivations/reasons" (note: the real reasons, not the ancillary details). Most people are entirely emotionally detached from events 200 years ago, so there is also no need to spin history either to appease an own population.
There are no endless debates about "Who started it?"
The Napolionic Wars were of course declared by London, as a preventive war, in May 1803, and the (correct) reason/motivation given for this declaration of war, by most historians, is that it was to "avoid the single hegemony" on the continent.
In 1914, "WW1" evolved out of a local conflict, which started in the Balkans, and through a few unfortunate twists and turns developed into the second truly "world" war, in order to establish domination and rule.
Hanlon's Razor states "not to attribute to mallice, what can adequately be explained by stupidity", and with WW1, Europe started its own demise because of efforts to remain individually dominant/relevant.
Of course, on the other side of the Atlantic, wars were always fought for unity, and common goals (aim of expansion).
The American Century was a ship already launched, but renamed halfway.
The "ship" started its journey with a war of unity (Civil War because of "poor slaves" aka "the emotional argument"), then expanding westwards (Manifest Destiny, Mexican-American War), getting rid of entities which could be misused by foreign powers to "divide and rule" ("Trails of Tears" of the unfortunate "losers" of history), and the consolidation of own strength (Monroe Doctrine/Spanish-American War).
And with that, the "ship" bumped up against the "dock", which was European rule and domination of the globe.
Didn't anybody notice?
The history of the west I guess, in a five minute nutshell...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If our so-called leaders willing to lie to millions of people, steal from millions of people, and kill millions of people in order to avoid the creation of unity everywhere else on the planet, then the opposite pole of that is that other "sides" then become an emergent reality as a RESULT of that intention to impose, and will resort to violence in order to achieve unity, to balance that out. That is the state the "dividers" want: they want others to "shoot first" so they can exploit the emotions following in the wake of that, for favorable narratives, so the own "side" can gain.
In their pursuit of greed, these leaders state that their systems pf power should stop wishing to be "liked" (Machiavelli/see footnote) as they sowed division to a point of death and war everywhere on the planet, in the attempt to hang on to the 50% of the world's resources they claimed for themselves as just, and that is what they do.
They impose minority rule by division over the rest of the planet, from a GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
They mask these intentions behind flowery declarations, kind words, acts of benevolence and altruism, which regardless of how heartfelt and honest they might individually be, stand no chance against the dividers (political hawks/Machiavelli) which sow their divisive plots onto the rest of the world's systems.
These dividers lie, telling their young men and women that they are "fighting for democracy" and "fighting for peace", or whatever. They have always lied from the geopositional vantage points, knowing they would not become a victim of the own divisiveness...
These dividers use hypocrisy to draw others like them, into their networks. They have always been hypocrites, because hypocrisy is a strategy of power, and trying to shame a hypocrite is a pointless waste of energy...
These dividers pound idealistic slogans into the minds of their own people, which they as deciders never aim to abide by. They have always done this, from a geopositional advantage, to train and finance willing fools...
Footnote:
"In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to 'be liked' or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position, of being our brothers’ keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better." (US Policy Planning Study #23)
And that is how divide and rule is imposed, without saying as much.
One hand preaching the gospels of peace, the other hand sowing the divisions which then lead to hatred, crises, and wars...
1
-
1
-
"In the 1980s it turned brutal".
Because cause and effect is brutal...
"The war on drugs is a largely unsuccessful campaign,[6] led by the U.S. federal government, of drug prohibition, military aid, and military intervention, with the aim being the reduction of the illegal drug trade in the United States.[7][8][9][10] The initiative includes a set of drug policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs that the participating governments and the UN have made illegal. The term was popularized by the media shortly after a press conference given on June 18, 1971, by President Richard Nixon—the day after publication of a special message from President Nixon to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control—during which he declared drug abuse "public enemy number one". That message to the Congress included text about devoting more federal resources to the "prevention of new addicts, and the rehabilitation of those who are addicted", but that part did not receive the same public attention as the term "war on drugs".[11][12][13] However, two years prior to this, Nixon had formally declared a "war on drugs" that would be directed toward eradication, interdiction, and incarceration.[14]
Today, the Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates for an end to the War on Drugs, estimates that the United States spends $51 billion annually on these initiatives.[15]
(from Wiki)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The idea that people have that their own countries are "fighting for the weak and powerless" is a misconception.
States and empires fight for their own benefit, and there is always a "price tag" for "help".
States and empires don't "fight for weak countries/people": The grand strategy is called "the proxy".
Proxy wars always have big and little brothers.
Unless the "big brother" and the "little brother" are in the same boat there is no equality in outcome.
Unless the "brothers in arms" are exposed to the same or similar level of danger and are facing the same or similar potential ill-effects due to own actions/inactions, then it is an unequal relationship. Unless all parties suffer similar percentages of financial and human losses, and risk a similar percentage of destruction to their property and territory, then it is in effect "a proxy" which has been set up for the fall.
The ones losing most are the "proxy" of course.
In politics and big business, nobody does anything for free.
How one writes history is more a matter of framing: for example the widespread misconception of "good empires on the right side of history, fighting for the little guy" (aka "the poor people"-argument): notice just how...ahem..."coincidentally" these "poor people" just happen to live in regions of the planet with raw materials/strategic value. Empires are suspiciously very keen on "fighting for democracy/freedom" when these battles take place in areas of the planet benefitting own gain in some or other form, or beneficial to the own rise in power.
In strategy, the so-called "fighting for the little guy/democracy/freedom" is nothing else than "creating a proxy" or "proxy wars" for own gain.
It's the same thing, simply using different words or "putting a spin" on words by changing the perspective, thereby making it more palatable and advantangeous to the own cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Re.: Carpet bombing city centers.
"Right or wrong", or "Was it a war crime", or "Who started", is all irrelevant.
Our elites have divided us "commoners" and "grunts", and are agitating behind closed doors, while we do the squabbling...
Because there's always a big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Google: britannica & balance-of-power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to play "balancing games" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...you loose your empire to the new kids in town...
From the unmistakable "Nr.1" in 1900, down to "merely on par" with Washington DC after WW1, down to "third fiddle" during the Cold War. All in less than a single lifetime...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. The world was divided in "East" and "West".
And down went the British Empire too...
I wouldn't waste time arguing with immoral people.
Simply tell them the outcome of own actions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Harris was a liar. He lied to the British people about the effectiveness of Area Bombing (aka the policy of killing 'enemy' population).
Although he was fighting on the better side (against utter evil), he nevertheless allowed himself and his talents as organizer and a leader of men to be misused for a policy which had the direct intention of sending soldiers to kill civilians.
He should have refused, and it would have had no impact on the Allied war effort whatsoever.
After the war was over, he became extremely unpopular, almost an outcast. He lied to the public in an effort of justifying the many deaths (not only civilians, but also the 55,000 British and Commonwealth airmen).
One blatant lie I personally researched a few years ago concerned Harris' claim that "Bomber Command destroyed a third of all submarines before they were completed".
Here is the truth: Gröner's book (ISBN 3-7637-6215-9) on the Kriegsmarine lists all German ships ordered during the war, incl. the roughly 1,400 submarines ordered or started (1162 completed during WW2). On pages 85-100 , the book lists every single submarine, and it's fate. Only 58 German submarines were destroyed as a result of air raids, and only a portion of these were destroyed by the RAF "area bombing" city centers, with "spillover" sometimes hitting something of value
The overwhelming majority was by US daylight precision bombing raids.
Now, that a far cry from the "one third" claimed by Harris for his Bomber Command.
Anybody who bases his opinion on Area Bombing, according to a lie, is therefore misguided.
On top of that, Harris also stole credit where credit was due, from the airmen of the USAAF. Like a thief, he simply claimed that his orders had played a huge role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, by stealing the hard labor of others.
He simply claimed the destruction caused by US precision bombing as his own, and used it to justify fighting a war on civilians.
So?
Should we admire liars and thieves?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobs_toys China is a "socialist state" according to the definition...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
I'm not directing you to any specific site.
You can google, or use any other site.
The definition stays the same.
Who "controls" the "means" of production in China?
China is a socialist state (form of government) which uses capitalist measures to boost production, by means of the STRICT enforcement of government policies.
The state "controls" EVERYTHING. Laws, regulations, incomes, who works where, who lives where, who is allowed what. There is LITTLE or NO influence by the general public, or private organisations in any way. In case you have a good idea in China, the PARTY decides where that idea goes. And believe it or not, you better be nice to the party :-)
It's a socialist state.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobs_toys Sorry :-)
But China abandoned communism and changed to socialism.
China abandoned communism (in other words the COMPLETE exclusion of private property and production) and changed to socialism (note, that socialism does not EXCLUDE private property or enterprise. It just controls it).
If you wish, call socialism "communism light".
China is a "socialist state".
Capitalism is something completely different.
In the US, government does not "control" the "means of production". China DOES. How much do you actually know about China? In China, you cannot do anything without the omnipotent "party". It's like an octopus, and it's EVERYWHERE. Have you looked into the Chinese internet by any chance?
LOL, no of course not.
You can't, because the Party CONTROLS that.
Everything.
China IS a socialist state.
It has simply cherry-picked a "best of capitalism" list (for example "internet companies"), and then FIERCELY controls it.
Again.
Look at the definition of "socialism".
The definition of "capitalism" is that ONLY the MARKET decides (not an omnipotent "party"). In China, it isn't "the market" which decides if you can open, say, an internet company. It is "the Party" (note here, I'm not talking about smalltime private businesses like the hot-dog stand around the corner).
Ask Google :-)
What happened to google in China?
Look at a definition of capitalism. Government sets some rules and regulation (aka red tape), but basically it's up to private organisations and businesses (also individuals) to go out there and start their ideas. Do you have a large business? Who controls this business on a daily basis? You or Washington?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The point...
It's what happens if you make the wrong friends.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@letitiaprincess1125 @Letitia Princess The British Empire you admire so much, smuggled drugs into your country.
Do you understand?
The British Empire was no better than a drug dealer...
They completely undermined the authority of your people's leaders, who at the time had established the (comparably) best economy in the world.
It was greed that drove them to subject your people, and turn millions into drug addicts.
How can you admire that?
The communism you correctly despise, is another "European import".
Is your opinion of your own people so low, that you think Chinese thinkers could not have come up the qualities of life (system of justice, schools, etc.) If simply left alone?
Are you saying that your people were primitive, that they needed Western teachers?
I disagree.
Without colonial meddling, wars, invasion, trade imbalances (plundering your riches), the whole of China today would most likely be even better than Hong Kong is today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DanielMartinez-rt2rn We must all beware of not becoming the "defenders" of something we don't truly understand.
A quick overview of the modus operandi of imperialism, by looking at the history of "Panama" around the year 1900.
Imperialism:
1) The imperialist power wants something (say, the Panama Canal in the late-19th century)
2) accuse some other power of being "imperialist" or whatever... (Columbia, the legal owner of the territory)
3) disguise the own systemic greed as "poor people"-argument
4) center of power (corporatism in alliance with Washington DC) supports local "revolutionaries" who want secession
5) pay these resulting "freedom fighters" to request the imperialist power's aid (aka the creation of "the proxy")
6) carve up the sphere of influence into seperate countries
7) go back to 1)
8) get a lot of homegrown "neoimperialist" (fanboys, usually the "sitting in mommy's basement"-variety), to vociferously defend the disguised imperialism, usually by "skewing the timeline of events", or another use of the plethora of deceptive means...
Neoimperialism
With regards to "Taiwan", according to international law it is a part of China, just like Hawaii or Puerto Rico is a part of the USA.
1) The USA wants something (military bases to encroach on and surround its own rival, which it created 20 years ago as a matter of Washington DC policy)
Now, implement "steps 2 through 8".
The OP I wrote is along similar lines, aka "Neoimperialism".
The USA wants something, which is to militarily surround their own main rival, and they will build up "proxies" to to the heavy fifting or "bloodletting" (strategy/John Mearsheimer") for them, while they stay in the background and finance the bloodshed.
The "buck passers" (strategy of the hegemony) then simply disguises every event as "saving the poor people" story.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Simon Bolivar was a tool or a proxy of the rising USA.
Washington DC used foreign blood (South Americans) while Europeans were off to look for easier targets of exploitation in Africa and Asia, and local South American "iron and blood" was "employed" indirectly to drive a slowly fading European colonial power out of the Americas (geopolitics/grand strategy) by offering a "shield" (Monroe Doctrine) that revolutionaries in the Americas could operate behind, whilst at the same time doing most of the "bleeding" (aka the "freedom"-argument). Strange thing though, is that nobody has ever bothered to find out what percentage of the population who lived in these regions at the time, actually wanted this "freedom" for themselves. It is simply assumed that most wanted it, 'cos "who can argue against freedom"...
After the "freedom" set in after the series of wars left many exhausted, the road to own US economic and political domination into these reformed political systems was paved, in the form of taking away the markets of the European Empire (Spain). Carved up into statelets, each of minor power inferior to the USA, is of course a classical "divide and rule"-strategy...
A template Washington DC later expanded on in a much larger scale as it "came for" Europe, and a little bit later (see footnote) the last powerful European empire in the world, the British Empire.
A historical observation of "carving up potential opposition into statelets" (Spanish Empire territory, turned into "statelets" like Venezuela and Columbia), each of lesser power than the "divider"...
This exact same technique was later used, scaled up sufficiently by Washington DC, to overpower the British Empire after 1945.
Footnote: The Father Niemöller logic of "morality", is of course as much a warning to heed a "balance of power", since if once destroyed, there will be nobody left to unite with in order to protect the own interests from an overpowering rival (or the own "best friend/s").
If you wish to truly understand the "how" and "why" the British Empire failed, then go to the Kai..ser Wilh_elm II video of the "Hi--story R--oom" educational channel (distorted to avoid the autoblock function of some channels). Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under this video. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
Most of what we are fed by our systems, as "rote learning" details, are "99% ancillary details": not saying these are untrue or wrong, but simply that they are not as important on the ranking or "tiers" of events as geopolitics and grand strategy.
For these geostrategists, divide and rule/conquer is their main strategy, regardless of what you as an individual believes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Korea, Vietnam, the Ukraine...
Will the little minions ever learn?
Those who gladly "carve up" others, even along completely random man-made lines on a map, separating individuals, organisations, families and businesses, will hardly ever agree with being "carved up" by somebody else.
Korea was carved up by imperialists during WW2 (cooperating imperialist Allied camp) without asking the locals what they wanted for themselves.
Then they tried the same in Vietnam a few years later, using the ongoing war of independence as an excuse (name-branded as "USA saving the world from communism"). Here it failed.
Actual objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China
From wiki: "Main article: China containment policy. As laid out by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-run strategic effort to surround Beijing with the USSR, its satellite states, as well as: The Japan–Korea front, The India–Pakistan front, and The Southeast Asia front. Although President Johnson stated that the aim of the Vietnam War was to secure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a January 1965 memorandum by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton stated that an underlying justification was "not to help friend, but to contain China".[22][23][24] On November 3, 1965, Secretary of Defense McNamara sent a memorandum to Johnson, in which he explained the "major policy decisions with respect to our course of action in Vietnam". The memorandum begins by disclosing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965: 'The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain China.[25] McNamara accused China of harboring imperial aspirations like those of the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States: 'China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30s, and like the USSR in 1947—looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us.[25]'
Note that this is a typical ploy in IR: accuse the "other side" of something which one is doing oneself. The own strategy of divide-and-rule is kept secret, but the other side is accused of harbouring ill intent. To encircle the Chinese, the United States aimed to establish "three fronts" as part of a "long-run effort to contain China": 'There are three fronts to a long-run effort to contain China (realizing that the USSR "contains" China on the north and northwest): (a) the Japan–Korea front; (b) the India–Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.[25]'
Further on: "However, McNamara admitted that the containment of China would ultimately sacrifice a significant amount of America's time, money and lives.[25]"
As always in such cases, "extending" a rising rival power always comes with "expenses" incurred, including lives, and therefore the intention is to create proxies in artificial entities like "South Vietnam" to do such containment for the higher power.
This is divide-and-rule.
Favoratism, or the "paid proxy" can be used in times of peace to undermine, to wage subversive warfare against rivals, or in times of war to cut own costs and losses, what gaining advantages after a "victory". When there is no chance that the proxy can achieve this "extension of the rival", the proxy is quickly sold out short, to cut the own "investment".
Join such people at the own expense.
They do not abide by the Christian values, which they constantly flaunt as being "oh-so-superior" and to be admired...
North Korea/South Korea (implemented).
North Vietnam/South Vietnam (intention).
East Ukraine/West Ukraine (in the making).
Always the same playbook.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021). This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Fact is that Trump, or any other previous admin, did not stop this "(systemic) slow march" of systemic expansion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When you are trying to "get in" somewhere, you are automatically trying to "get out" of something else....
This girl tried to escape the terror of her own country, Guatemala, ruined by your tax dollars.
From Stanford, about the US WAR on Drugs declared by Nixon in 1972.
"America is at war. We have been fighting drug abuse for almost a century. Four Presidents have personally waged war on drugs. Unfortunately, it is a war that we are losing. Drug abusers continue to fill our courts, hospitals, and prisons. The drug trade causes violent crime that ravages our neighborhoods. Children of drug abusers are neglected, abused, and even abandoned. The only beneficiaries of this war are organized crime members and drug dealers.
The United States has focused its efforts on the criminalization of drug use. The government has, to no avail, spent countless billions of dollars in efforts to eradicate the supply of drugs. Efforts of interdiction and law enforcement have not been met with decreases in the availability of drugs in America. Apart from being highly costly, drug law enforcement has been counterproductive. Current drug laws need to be relaxed. The United States needs to shift spending from law enforcement and penalization to education, treatment, and prevention."
Being in denial about a condition, doesn't make the condition go away.
Your tax dollars are financing war in Central America. A "war" resulting in a 3,000% profit margin for drug cartels, against which small Central American governments are powerless.
1
-
The discussion topic is too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture. Simply a look at a small pixel of the larger image, and therefore too "compartmentalized".
Europe lost its top tier position a long time ago, as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, ALL Europeans lost.
WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and Great Britain off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted.
WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that Atlanticists (the naval powers) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination.
In the end ALL Europeans lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After the Cold War this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, as new frontierlands to systemically convert, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards.
Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are you a citizen of the world, and wish to contribute a small share to end the grip the global elites have on the narrative of history?
Are you American, or European? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from the multitude of military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any platform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Why do we know this? Because good people have been voting, and posting, and debating, and using their freedom of speech, and protesting for hundreds of years, but the grip the elites have on the plebs has NEVER changed.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting all international big brands.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small local companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever and whenever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get side-lined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone," or "but, but, but...your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be perfect...
Methodology: JDI and make it a long term lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk trend, because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate interests. Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small local companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Do you wish to fight meddling globalist empires?
If those who have the money use their competitive advantages to spread lies and misdirection via the MSM, we must use our numbers to spread the truth of what happened.
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influential GLOBAL ELITES only REALLY start "caring" (sic.) when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Comparing the toppling of statues to the behavior of Pharaohs who lived 3 or 4,000 years ago, is a false equivalency.
As a Christian, slavery was never OK, and if the standpoint is "well, at the time it was considered okay", then that can be countered by "well...who did they ask at the time?"
As "do unto others" Christians, a majority would not have agreed to practices of dragging people away from their homes in chains, transporting them like cattle in the hold of a ship, and selling them on markets like apples or potatoes...
What "do onto others" Christian do you think would have wanted that for themselves, or family if they had been asked for an opinion?
1
-
1
-
1
-
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl/Historian)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
So Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielmccloud8799 There is only "history".
As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives".
One perspective should not rank higher than another.
Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable".
The reality?
As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Superpower behaviour started a looooong time ago...
BISMARCK (regional division of the Balkans as regional divide-and-rule), VS. MONROE (as global divide-and-rule)
After Europe became "exhausted" from the Napoleonic Wars, the opportunity was exploited in Washington DC for the implementation of GLOBAL DIVIDE-AND-RULE.
That reality facilitated the first "superpower"-behaviour...
THE MONROE DOCTRINE AS "DIVISION" OF THE ENTIRE WORLD AS GEOPOLITICAL DIVISION OF INTERESTS (DIVIDE-AND-RULE)
As can be easily missed in a biased analysis of world history, focused on all the "exciting titbits" like battles and political wrangling, the Monroe Doctrine "divided" the entire world with a "ruling" (similarly, as the "rhyming" Treaty of Tordesillas/Spain/Portugal for the New World before). Powers doing their Weltpolitik which is always "good if WE do it." This Weltpolitik as division originated from Washington DC, and was made without consultation with anybody else, which would remain Washington DC's standing policy from then on. They didn't have to consult, because Europe was "exhausted". Poor little Europeans, always ending up "exhausted," and too stupid to figure out why they are the tools of others, but that is another story...
Previously, and analogous to Russia in Eurasia, the USA had used this war mainly fought in Europe and which had exhausted all, to expand its own territorial expansion in North America (N.America as the territorial sphere of influence in the wake of "European exhaustion"/please refer to "like every other history book about the USA"). The Napoleonic Wars were fought globally using various techniques of power (incl. but not limited to military clashes) but the main battlefield was "IN Europe". Here is where the war would be decided. In the period following the Napoleonic Wars, European leaders were simply too weak to protest or do anything about this "global example of divide-and-rule" (Monroe Doctrine), and too divided to unite against it as "single hegemony", and as declared by Washington DC without consultation, and which intended to squeeze Europeans "out" of the Americas in the most hegemonic fashion. Small dependencies of the "current best fwiends" would be honoured for the MOMENT whilst all were still "best fwiends", see "Twump" today, just doing their Weltpolitik, but that is another story....
BISMARCK'S "DIVISION" OF THE BALKANS AS REGIONAL GEOPOLITICAL DIVISION OF INTERESTS (DIVIDE-AND-RULE)
No, of course one cannot denounce/criticize Bismarck's use of the "light side" of the force called "divide-and-rule" without then also equally denouncing or criticizing the Monroe Doctrine on the other side of the Atlantic an few years before, for separating the New World per decree, from the Old World.
For Europe's sake, Bismarck's suggestion was a good solution to avoid conflicts from the Balkans "spilling over" into Europe, and it worked as long as it was adhered to.
Note that in both cases the intentions behind the rulings were purely to avoid hegemonial interests of outside powers. Both "rulings" at least kept other powers out of designated areas as POWERS, as the old hegemony receded in power, leaving the feared "power vacuum" for other forces to fill. In South America the "sick man" retreating was Spain, and in the Balkans it was the Ottoman Empire retreating step-by-step during the 19th century. The nutshell version: such "rulings" squeezed other powers out, to avoid a region becoming a "powder keg" of conflicting interests. In case the division of the Balkans had remained as "divided" into East/West with designated powers as agreed upon (Austria-Hungary = the West/Russia = the East), the powder keg would have had a lot less "powder" because all responsible leaders would have known who the "decider" was, should an issue arise (political-/economic-/religious-/"whatever" of geopolitical magnitude). As the various local minor powers/interest groups/ideologies vied for positions of power and more influence, there was already enough local violence as it was, without outside powers stepping in trying to gain from the "revolutionary spirit," as the Ottoman Empire weakened and withdrew from the "chessboard".
(Note that this cannot be compared to the "dark side" of the force called divide-and-rule in which powers use the technique for "offensive" purposes, far away from home, without their own security concerns of the homelands being a factor. A few thousand miles away from home, is always purely unfettered greed of systemic expansion, which is set apart from the intentions to secure the own "backyards" in order to avoid wars here.)
Berlin playing divide-and-rule with the Balkans, can NOT be compared with London playing divide-and-rule in India for example. London's security, was NOT "guarded" in India, in the same way that the security of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia and the multiple millions of people living here, were effected by events in the Balkans (own bordering region). Let's not compare apples with oranges for the sake of a nice story (fallacy in reasoning).
This template is near enough in order to serve as a template and to explain principles of power. This aforementioned was the same as in South America during the 19th century as Spain retreated and minor interest groups vied for political power/influence to fill the vacuum. Had European imperialists entered the fray, into the "revolutionary spirit" in South America, the effects would have been a lot worse, as these powers would have searched for "buck catchers", for proxies, and for ways to enter own systems of power/control, or corporate interests, and armed rival powers.
The lesson of history is simple. Replace a "power vacuum" with a new order asap. If not the entire region could collapse into turmoil, terror, gang violence, racketeers, all armed and funded by OUTSIDERS and neighbouring minor powers, as seen in Iraq post-2003, spilling over into Syria, and as seen in Eastern Europe after Brest-Litovsk was rescinded (Nov 1918). Remove the hegemony, and the region usually spirals downwards into bloodshed and turmoil. The more resources and potential systemic gain promised/desired, the more violent the interactions.
THE BALKANS AND THE LATER "WW1", ARISING "OUT OF" A "THIRD BALKAN WAR"
What changed after the turn of the century (around 1900)?
What happened after 1903 in the Balkans, was exactly the same thing Russia was complaining about after the 1990s, only the "shoe was in the other foot." The use of a proxy (Serbia) to encroach on, and slowly encircle the rival Austria-Hungary was (according to our "common consensus") perfectly OK when Russia did it in slow incremental steps starting around the year 1900, hoping nobody would notice, and at least tacitly supported by her new-found "best friends" (GB/1907 and France 1894).
After the 1890s a new country (Serbia) was morphed and became the proxy for an outside power (Russia), searching for access to the Balkans and beyond, the "warm water port"-narrative.
After the 1990s a new country (Ukraine) was morphed and became the proxy for the outside powers (USA/EU/NATO), searching for access into Eastern Europe, via the Black Sea region.
Near enough to be good enough as comparison with regards to why such encroachment results in alarm in the powers encroached on, and at some point there will be a REaction to the encroachment/encirclement.
Before 1914: Russia had to be "let into the Balkans" (geopolitics/grand strategy as "fwiend") with promises and accord, or "nodding off" the advance.
Post-1990s: Russia had to be squeezed out of the Balkans, because said "promises/accords" were no longer useful to the "deciders" who would escalate to squeeze Russia out.
Friends one day, enemies the next, friends one day, enemies the next, friends one day...
DIVIDE-AND-RULE, as explained by Thomas Jefferson...
In the effort to remain the global hegemon, new countries like the Ukraine, or the newly-released new countries (from the old order) were employed as pawns/knights/bishops/rooks/queens (rising rank of "worth") to encroach on and encircle Russia in a grand strategic encirclement. Of course the people, ideologies were different due to the different locations on the map, different religions, political forces, but on the systems/strategies-tier was the same thing. Slowly and systemically creeping into a designated sphere of influence, one step at a time, cheered along by a selection of folks back home, and "perfectly ok if done to somebody else."
TODAY WITHIN THE MONROE DOCTRINE'S REACH
Now see what happens if there is a "feeling" that others are taking something away from the own systems, then the "common consensus" is an oh-so-miraculously 180-degree about turn, and the little screamers (see Trump & Fanclub these days about the Panama Canal), and power players whine like babies, crying like children about nasty "Chy-naaah" trying to take away their beautiful Panama Canal. They claim not to know what a sphere of influence is. The great pretenders, pretending to be fighting against something while actually supporting what they claim to be "fighting." Such great admirers of freedom, until someone tries to take something away from them (allegation) and it is done to the own systems.
(Note in this case, China is NOT trying to "take away" the hegemonial power's political influence, but it is only about a private corporate managing of the ports, a minor issue riled up "molehill to mountain"-style. Should Russia, or China, ever try to take over what the USA considers "theirs" per Monroe Doctrine there will be war, regardless of what the local people who live in Central America desire, and totally disregarding their lives and health. POT. KETTLE. BLACK.)
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the indivual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Seeing how most of the comments are slogans and appeals to emotion, I'll just jump into the fray.
For hundreds of years, the British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations around the world. Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images").
Looks a lot like Coventry, doesn't it?
Kagoshima, Copenhagen, Canton, Sebastopol (Krim War), and and dozens of others.
Such fun to have propaganda ministers coining the term "Copenhagenization" to mock the children they burnt alive...
From wiki, regarding the practice: "...the Political Register: 'Oh, that example of Copenhagen has worked wonders in the world!...I (would) like to see the name of that city become a verb ... 'cities will be copenhagenized' is an excellent phrase. It's very true, that Sir John Warren would copenhagenize New York with very little trouble..."
Excellent indeed...
When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets" and bomb(ard) countries without declaring war. The locals defending their own? Mowing down natives armed with spears, with machine guns? Pfffft. Nobody cared...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps (called "penal colonies"), and terror bombing innocents called Air Policing...
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s killed their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
All of a sudden, they were sooooo tired of all that "Empire"-stuff...
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
1
-
@patriciabrenner9216 "As bombardier, Zinn dropped napalm bombs in April 1945 on Royan, a seaside resort in western France.
On the ground, Zinn learned that the aerial bombing attacks in which he participated had killed more than a thousand French civilians as well as some German soldiers hiding near Royan to await the war's ed, events that are described "in all accounts" he found as "une tragique erreur" that leveled a small but ancient city and "its population that was, at least officially, friend, not foe." In The Politics of History, Zinn described how the bombing was ordered—three weeks before the war in Europe ended—by military officials who were, in part, motivated more by the desire for their own career advancement than in legitimate military objectives."
Copied from the Film Archives Channel (YouTube)
After World War II, Zinn attended New York University on the GI Bill, graduating with a B.A. in 1951. At Columbia University, he earned an M.A. (1952) and a Ph.D. in history with a minor in political science (1958).
Apparrently roasting your French ancestors was "sweet retribution"....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favorite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the lead-up to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power, in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states with a GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION, and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around.
Whatever...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of what some "experts" proclaim, the logic of the "bomber will always get through" of the 1930s, is repeated today, and these various types of nukes will always get through in sufficient amounts to wipe any power off the map. Even if it survives as state or country, it will no longer be a world power. All it needs is sufficient numbers of MIRVs in order to sacrifice some (incl. duds to attract/distract/overwhelm the air defense), so that the mass of the rest will reach their intended targets. So the "experts" tell you their Patriots will stop them. These Patriots and other missiles and air defense systems can be overcome by implementing a very simple programmable and unjam-able multiple-layered enertia-guided and therefore unstoppable attack, as first-strike, and the first incoming Russian nukes, stationed just 15 minutes flight-time away, will act as multiple air burst to wipe out any attempt to intercept them in the radius of 100 miles, and the following strikes in their wake a minute later will mostly get through. Unlike 50, 100, 0r 200 years ago there WILL be a price to pay for pushing, pushing and pushing, until something snaps. For WHEN it "snaps" it won't be like last time with victory parades, and lotsa medals...
Keep on poking the bear.
Get the Ukraine to try and blind the Russian early-warning radar systems.
Keep on "poking by proxy" and we will find out, because we are ruled over by idiots, imperialists, obfuscators, liars, deceivers and manipulators: not all of them, but enough to implement the divide and rule strategy of power.
Keep on poking, and find out that we've always been ruled by chest-thumping fools and psychopaths all along: not all of them, but enough to implement age-old Roman-era strategies of power, intended to gain for a few as most others lose. Just don't for a minute think, the default "other side" doesn't know what our leaders are up to...
Don't for a minute think that in the attempted twisting of observable reality to deceive oneself, that one can deceive others.
Should the above unfold, it doesn't matter anymore how one chest-thumps around about how "superior" or "always right" one systemically always was while setting off on the MARCH ROUTE of the empire.
It doesn't matter anymore if one lives in the EU or Northern Europe, going "but, but, I'm so innocent."
It doesn't matter if one chants "trust our leaders, cos they know better cos cos we democracies and we never did anything wrong as the default setting..."
It doesn't matter anymore about how the few survivors brag about "how many millions of Russians they also bagged".
Then it doesn't matter anymore, because our myopic leaders will no longer be in a position to implement wrongs per "new Versailles" (currently planned in Switzerland for mid-June) and get away with it. Of course, they are going to insist on only negotiating with the true representatives of the peoples of Russia, who truly desire peace just like our own superior Western leaders who have only always wanted peace, cos they said so, and since that turned out so great last time around.
The conference is of course a total waste of taxpayer money, just like Versailles was 100 years ago (1919).
Before Moscow gets into that position of becoming carved up and used as a tool to encroach on the next in line, China, it will wipe the entire West off the map FIRST.
China is not going to stand by without action, while Russia dissolves into single, smaller, easily influenced buck-catchers for the USA/collective West (imperialism, by "using" smaller nations to do the own bidding), because they know full-well they will be next to be carved up and divvied out.
The USA/collective West no longer have a geographical position of power.
The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbors, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed.
Guess who will live longest in the "nuclear winter"-scenario? (theory)_
Short answer: NOT you (personally).
Longer answer: The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand). The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
Because during the next war set up by the dividers of the world, from their assumed GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, it does not matter "who is right" and it does not even matter "who is left," loosely quoting Churchill, but rather in what state the leftovers are going to be in.
CONCLUSION:
Today the default rivals/enemies to keep Eurasia divided and in a state of turmoil, are nuclear powers: they don't have to CARE what you (individual) think is "true" or is the "rule" whilst your empire is slowly creeping up on their borders and spheres of influence, or try to surround or encroach on them with old Roman era schemes, same as around 1900. If the USA/collective West is going to keep on encroaching, or trying to take over spheres of influence, you are going to get your sorry "50% wealth of the world is mine"-ass fried, and then it doesn't matter how many pushups you did that morning, or how beautiful you think your rich neighborhood looks, how lovely your boom boom tanks and airplanes are, or how much of the world's resources you think your systems have a right to CONTROL. The people who gain from an imperialistic setup they implement are overwhelmingly not going to die from the disasters growing out of the foundations they lay down. Throughout history, they've always managed to pay those who overwhelmingly don't gain, to sit in that muddy trench, for the gains of those at the tops of the pyramids.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The objective of politics/historicity is to factor in YOUR emotions, into your analysis of daily events today, and the historicity of the past, so that individuals start "cheering" for imperialism, without even being aware of the fact that you are "cheering for" imperialist strategies of POWER.
Imperialist strategies have hardly changed these past 200-300 years, despite all the new laws, rules, regulations, and good intentions by the "doves" of politics and international relations, or in the private sector (NGOs). These actors are set up against the "hawks" of POWER: also very active in politics and international relations, or in the private sector (NGOs)
The key objective by power players is to mask the POWER of the "divide and rule"-strategy ("systems/strategy"-tier of analysis).
It works the same way it has always worked ever since the dawn of modern civilizations.
While the strategists/politicians/ruling elites focus on STRATEGY, they attempt to appeal to your LIMBIC SYSTEM, the most primitive part of your brain. (§§§§§footnote)
§§§footnote
How these "headless elites" unite in order to form temporary usefull alliances...
§§§§footnote
Definition of imperialism according to Wiki. Other definitions are all similar.
"Imperialism is the practice, theory or attitude of maintaining or extending power over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism, employing not only hard power (military and economic power) but also soft power (diplomatic power and cultural imperialism)."
§§§§§footnote
Britannica, the Limbic System: "The limbic system is a group of structures in the brain that governs emotions, motivation, olfaction, and behavior. It is also involved in the formation of long-term memory."
Very useful for playing "divide and rule" on unsuspecting souls, who just wish to mind their own business.
Otherwise known as the "Appeal to Emotion (Cognitive bias)," if other means in convincing individuals are lacking, or faltering...
Other mass-psychological phenomena, like "social proof" then influence how "the masses" react.
Wiki: "Social proof (or informational social influence) is a psychological and social phenomenon wherein people copy the actions of others in choosing how to behave in a given situation." Or, everybody just does and says what everybody else does and says, because... "if everybody does and says something", it MUST be right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@befeleme OK, I filed it under "J" for "joke" 🙂
Back to the "divide and rule"-technique, and serious business 🙂
The strategy of "divide and rule/conquer" is the force to influence billions of minds, and is strategy acting in conjunction with human nature (particularly, emotions). It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: that is wrong.
It is misunderstood, because it is as much a strategy of "top down" measures of power players, as it is of "bottom up" failure (human nature). The "dissention" is created by fans defending the actions of their own "favorites" (individuals/systems/"-isms"/etc.), and you can study it here, in this comments section, or in politics, in debates, or on campusses, in fact: everywhere. Human beings are "dividing" themselves, because unlike their elites who steer this "divide and rule" top down, the "bottom" cannot focus on a single guideline.
That was the intention of my "Jesus" reference. Yes, I know: even his very existence as a human being is not without controversy. It does not matter: in the systemic analysis, it is simply about "systems" and the strategies these systems used.
Dividing the opposition is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid the divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is. Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use the technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you and me as commoners will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. All power players regardless of the system of gain in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter the shark tank of the "divide and rule"-system.
The favorite = favoratism = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Im Februar 1948 sagte der Policy Planning Staff von George F. Kennan: „Wir besitzen etwa 50 % des Weltvermögens, aber nur 6,3 % der Bevölkerung ... Unsere eigentliche Aufgabe in der kommenden Zeit besteht darin, ein Muster zu entwickeln, von Beziehungen, die es uns ermöglichen, diese Position der Ungleichheit aufrechtzuerhalten."
Und das tun diese Herren.
Amerikas Verbündete und Feinde in Europa werden immer noch gegen einander aufgebracht und dann verbrannt, um sicherzustellen, dass diese Ungleichheit bestehen bleibt.
So wird die Strategie „Teile und Herrsche“ umgesetzt.
Sie bringen europäische und eurasische Nationen gegeneinander auf. Das „Spielbuch“ Großbritanniens und der USA seit mehr als 100 Jahren. Lesen Sie Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) und Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
.................................
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these gentlemen do.
America's allies and enemies in Europe are still being turned against each other and then burned to ensure that this inequality remains.
This is how “divide and conquer” is implemented.
They pit European and Eurasian nations against each other. The UK and US playbook for more than 100 years. Read Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
Money is their vehicle to allocate resources.
It's the physical resources of the planet which are limited, and who CONTROLS the flow of printable money, controls the flow of resources.
That is how those in CONTROL keep some "down" and others "out" of their own systems of gain.
Obviously, there are not enough resources for the entire planet to live the same lifestyle as those systems in CONTROL.
It has nothing to do with "meritocracy" but is a PREMEDITATED strategy, and how well your systems do financially or systemically (countries/companies/etc.), depends on their LOCATION ON THE MAP (geopolitics), or whether they bow down and "lick boots" or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nobody is being "persecuted". That is your straw man...
99 % of the comments here don't understand simple rules about what being American is about...
As a real American, you keep your opinions to yourself, and don't try to impose yourself onto others.
There is a simply rule in politics, known as "separation of church and state".
Chow should simply have abstained from voting, and kept her personal opinions to herself. Nobody would have cared.
Instead, she chose to link her personal belief system, to a political decision she made...yup, and that is exactly why millions of people once immigrated to the USA, to escape the bigotry of Europe...lol, honestly, the irony...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sie brauchen nicht Tausende von Büchern studieren und endlose Debatten zum Thema „Wie funktioniert die US-Außenpolitik?“ verfolgen. Die Außenpolitik der USA zu verstehen ist eigentlich ganz einfach. Sie möchten eine Einheitspolitik in Eurasien, Westasien, Afrika, Südamerika, Ostasien und überall sonst vermeiden. Das ist alles.
Rom: hat die Methode „Teile und Herrsche“ gegenüber anderen angewendet, einschließlich der Nachbarn und unter Verwendung von Freunden, und sich dabei hinter einer Geschichte von Hybris und Hurrapatriotismus versteckt.
Das Britische Empire: hat die Methode „Teile und Herrsche“ gegenüber anderen angewendet, einschließlich der Nachbarn und unter Verwendung von Freunden, und sich dabei hinter einer Geschichte von Hybris und Hurrapatriotismus versteckt.
Das Amerikanische Jahrhundert: wendet derzeit die Methode „Teile und Herrsche“ gegenüber anderen an, einschließlich der Nachbarn und unter Verwendung von Freunden, und versteckt sich dabei hinter den Mainstream-Geschichten von Hybris und Hurrapatriotismus...
Es bedeutet, die Einheit aller anderen zu VERMEIDEN, auf welche Weise auch immer.
Durch Einmischung, wird die Einheit ganzer Kontinente und Regionen der Welt vermieden (auch kognitive Kriegsführung/siehe NATO Webseite, wo dies offen und stolz zugegeben wird).
Der Imperialismus muss die „Eigengruppe“ schaffen, die gegen die „Außengruppe“ aufgestellt werden kann: Auch das ist einfach. Robert A. Heinlein – „Sie können tausend Männer schneller beeinflussen, indem Sie an ihre Vorurteile appellieren, als Sie einen Mann durch Logik überzeugen können.“
Falls Sie in den USA oder im Westen insgesamt leben, waren Sie und Ihre Vorfahren nie in eine einzige Konfrontation verwickelt, die nicht auf der Grundlage vorheriger eigener Einmischung angestiftet, geschaffen oder aufgebaut wurde. Die Strategen und Weltanschauungen der Atlantiker, weit entfernt von den Spaltungen, die sie fördern und stellvertretend finanzieren, den ständigen Krisen, die sie anzetteln, den kalten Kriegen, für die sie den Grundstein legen, oder den heißen Kriegen, die sie vermeiden (doppelte Verneinung); und deren Marinen ihnen Zugang zu den Ressourcen der Welt (einschließlich „Humanressourcen“) verschaffen, wollten schon immer lange Kriege, wenn die Aussicht auf systemische Gewinne durch die Nutzung eines geografischen Vorteils (Entfernung von kriegführenden Staaten) bestand oder wenn die Gefahr einer Einheitsbildung in Europa/Eurasien bestand.
Die aktuelle Marschroute des Imperiums, die begann, als die UdSSR Ende der 1980er Jahre wirtschaftlich ins Straucheln geriet und das „zerteilte Jugoslawien“ das erste Opfer des Teile-und-herrsche-Prinzips war.
Systemische/ideologische Expansion nach:
- Osteuropa.
- Schwarzmeer-/Balkan-/Kaukasusregion (südliche Zange der Marschroute)
- Skandinavien-/Ostseeregion (nördliche Zange der Marschroute)
Marschieren Sie weiter, marschieren Sie weiter, und wenn es eine Reaktion oder einen Widerstand gibt, beginnen Sie mit dem „Fingerzeigen“ (narrative Kontrolle). Diese Art imperialistischen Verhaltens, wie es Washington DC und sein unterwürfiger „kollektiver Westen/NATO“ zeigen, begann nicht erst nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg.
Es bedeutet, die Einheit aller anderen zu VERMEIDEN, egal auf welche Weise.
Die Imperialisten und ihre Apologeten skandieren heute sogar dieselben Slogans und verwenden immer noch dieselben Expansionsstrategien wie vor 500, 200 und 100 Jahren, sind aber zu ignorant und gleichgültig, um es zu wissen oder sich darum zu kümmern. Wie immer werden die warnenden Stimmen der vernünftigen Hälften ignoriert, heruntergespielt, mit dem Finger auf sie gezeigt, als seien sie „unpatriotisch“ oder „mit dem Feind im Bett“ und viele andere Formen der ebenso „reimenden Geschichte“. Dafür geben sie jedes Jahr Milliarden aus, um die Realität zu verschleiern, damit ihre Imperien weiter marschieren, marschieren, marschieren, marschieren und zu den lustigen Melodien marschieren können...
Die Systeme und Konzerne kamen in Scharen für eine SYSTEMISCHE EXPANSION und alles, was sie jemals wollten, war Frieden weil sie es selber immer wiederholen.
Ein kleines Stücken Land mit eigenen Gesetzen hier für eine kleine amerikanische/NATO-Basis.
Ein nettes kleines Stück Kapital dort drüben, vom Nordstream-Projekt.
Ein gewalltiges Stück des Panamakanals...nur „zurückgewollt“, wohlgemerkt.
Ein tolles Stück dieser ukrainischen/kaukasischen Rohstoffe.
Ein nettes kleines Stücken Land mit Meeresblick, in der Levante.
Nur ein ganz kleines bisschen politischer Einfluss ÜBERALL.
Und, vergessen wir nicht, GANZ Grönland...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Israel only became a democracy AFTER they chased out 700,000 Arab inhabitants of Palestine.
Before, the Jews who come as immigrants, were a minority...so of course the invading "mastah" wasn't a fan of "democracy", and it wasn't even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
Or, as one clever man once aptly put it:
"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Two things would have stopped him.
1) more gun free zones, guarded by professionals, just like during the Wild West. During the Wild West, frontier towns were gun free zones, and everybody who tried to sneak past was automatically branded.
Since gun free zones don't have dozens of hillbillies running around with guns, shouting "I'm the good guy with the gun", the authorities can zero in on the criminal in seconds.
Here, it worked, and there were 3 innocent victims and not dozens.
Gun free zones work.
2) A nationwide, restricted gun law plus standard test on ability (same as driving) would restrict access to firearms to vetted and trained "good guys".
In this example, the guns had to be bought outside state.
He had no access to firearms, and if there had been a similar law nationwide, he could not have bought a weapon. Period (note, black market prices quickly double and tripple).
Without a long rifle, there would have been even less victims.
With a fully automatic military style rifle, there would have been hundreds.
Gun control works.
1
-
Margaret and Max know that Belgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB.
In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
The British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war".
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". Correct?
Germany therefore approached British leaders, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Berlitz81 Stop cheering tools...
Zionism became a tool of the British Empire during WW1.
After WW2, the hegemon causing problems in the Levant and the ME in general, became Washington DC.
The Cold War and "oil" (interests), geopolitical/grand strategy strategic interests (like military bases, or the control of geographical chokepoints), was the reason for all of the US/collective West's meddling in the ME for more than 100 years...
From a position of POWER, the USA/collective West used and still uses, the age-old strategy of "divide and rule" over ALL these minor powers in the Middle East and therefore the Levant.
The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they initially created with their own desire to CONTROL and DOMINATE the world, as terrorists...
It's "divide and rule".
Stand up to the hegemon, and one becomes the outgroup.
It's ALWAYS divide and rule if governments defend wrongs against the wishes of most of its inhabitants. For the "dividers", the resulting division is always good. They can rule over the fear, the discord, manage the "finger pointers", and moderate the "pointed at" alike.
The "winners"?
Those who act like the historical "Rome" in the background, pulling the strings of POWER, affording favoratism to chosen ones, for their own aims and goals.
It's how "divide and rule" works...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
1
-
@yarongutkin7222 You probably can't see my second comment, which contains a link and source, but the "root cause" is the illegal 75-year Israeli occupation, which according to international law, is illegal.
Every narrative must start here to avoid being warped from the onset.
IMO, and others may see it diffently if they wish, it's a bit rich occupying another people without their consent, and then blaming everything on others resisting. One might not agree on the means used by a 75-year old ongoing resistance movement, but one cannot change the term "resistance," which is a defined term.
Change starts in the own head first, but there seems little inclination by the occupying forces (Israeli state/ Zionist leaders/ political hawks/ settler colonists) to change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why are Americans surprized by any of these data points?
Because...first they came for the mom-and-pop stores, but Americans did nothing, cos' they didn't have a mom-and-pop store themselves...
Then they came for engineers, real-estate agents, and so on, and so on, and so on.
Finally, they will come for YOU, whatever you do, and there will be no-one to speak for YOUR profession or job. Then you will "own nothing," just like they already told you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grama326 First off, there is nothing wrong with protecting one's borders.
Concerning your second paragraph, I've written a string of comment (incl. to a "Mr White) about the causal effects of own actions in Central America, especially the War on Drugs feeding crime, corruption, weapons, corrupt cops, vigilante justice, spreading fear and hatred...
Even if you don't feel responsible, these effects are causal.
Causality is reality, and simply ignoring reality won't make reality go away. Turn large swathes of Central America into sh*tholes, and the people will want to leave.
I've already answered the step by step approach to combat that, and it starts with the Biblical reflection on own actions/deeds/harmful policies (to remove the splinters from the own eyes, before trying to point these out in others).
Wisdom, which seems to be missing...
But, back to "strong borders".
That is pointless, if the causes for mass migration are not addressed at the same time.
1
-
@grama326 Yes, all wars (and situations of duress and violence) throughout history have caused migration.
Where do you think white Americans came from, and why did so many decide to leave Europe? (hint, constant duress in the form wars and persecution)
For example, the Pilgrims (religious persecution), etc.
So, stop the "dumb" wars, the duress, and violence.
Duress = refugees.
That's how it has always been, and will always be.
Logical conclusion:
Don't like refugees or economic immigration?
Well, stop the dumb wars and duress.
Right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. Today, this has transformed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBERALS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. This branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
1
-
When reading the ultimatum, the inexperienced "Limbic brain thinker" is mesmerizingly drawn to "choice (a)"...
I wonder why?
" ... His Majesty’s Government have instructed me to demand that the French Fleet now at Mers el Kebir and Oran shall act in accordance with one of the following alternatives; (a) Sail with us and continue the fight until victory against the Germans, (b) Sail with reduced crews under our control to a British port. The reduced crews would be repatriated at the earliest moment. If either of these courses is adopted by you we will restore your ships to France at the conclusion of the war or pay full compensation if they are damaged meanwhile. (c) Alternatively if you feel bound to stipulate that your ships should not be used against the Germans unless they break the Armistice, then sail them with us with reduced crews to some French port in the West Indies — Martinique for instance — where they can be demilitarised to OUR satisfaction, or perhaps be entrusted to the United States and remain safe until the end of the war, the crews being repatriated. If you refuse these fair offers (edit: LOL, a false premise), I must with profound regret, require you to sink your ships within 6 hours ..."
Note here: All alternatives would have resulted in the removal of these French naval vessels, meaning that there would be no defense against seaborne elements of a potential future attack, to protect French citizens in Tunesia and Algeria.
London: "Looky here. I have a scrap of paper that says WE have the same enemy, but YOU are going to do most of the dying, and our common best fwiends in Washington DC are totally fine with that."
SIR Bolivar: "How honorable of us (ingroup conclusion."
How the mind of a deceiver works:
The deception offered by option (a), sticks out like a sore thumb
If chosen, it would mean that France broke the armistice conditions shortly after signing it, meaning that Italy would no longer be bound by these Armistice conditions. Not only Italy of course, but nothing then stopped Germany from occupying ALL of France as a result, leading to more FRENCH bloodshed and destruction of FRENCH property. If the French stuck to the armistice, on the other hand, it would leave roughly 80% of the French navy as deterence in the Med (40% in Oran/40% in Toulon/status quo). If they chose option (a), it would leave only 40% of the French Navy in Toulon, and possibly none, should Germany decide to occupy all of France because it broke the armistice. NO French ships to deter an attack to French North African territory, because they would have nowhere to operate from should Germany occupy all of France, and Italy if struck at Tunesia/Algeria.
Goading Italy into sending her massive Libyan armies westwards to fight France, rather than eastwards to fight GB, towards the Suez Canal, or if both were tried by Italy, then seriously weakening the forces available for attacking Egypt.
Choosing option (a) would have risked that the entire French Navy had no legal basis to operate under (no French based state), becoming fugives, maybe being forced to hope for breakaway French colony as harbor, and if none of the above then to join Great Britain like the Dutch Navy before, because the Empire HAD naval bases, just what London wanted: the French fleet under British CONTROL, to protect the British Empire "for free."
THE "DIVISION" PER "RULING" OF THE FRENCH EMPIRE
Note here that the Dutch government/navy can NOT serve as an example of "honorable solution" for France a few weeks later, since after May 1940, the Netherlands had nothing more to lose in Europe. All its unoccupied territory was far outside of the reach of the Axis powers (Indo-Pacific),an therefore a typical "apples/oranges"-comparrison.
If France chose the same "honorable government-in-exile" solution as Den Hague, as one can be easily misguided into thinking, France would lose even more: potentially French North Africa, to the "hyena Italy" and the total occupation of all her citizens by Germany. Meanwhile, for all of that, there was no guarantee that London might not simply make a deal with Berlin herself a few weeks later, in order to save its Empire from collapse, because a weak London offered the perfect opportunity for an expanded Axis Berlin-Moscow.
Note here, it was all about the British Empire, while saying "we".
Not a single word is wasted about any contigencies for the protection of French territory or citizens in North Africa, in the event of an attack by (most likely) Italy, being in the most advantageous location to make use of this stage of "French weakness" to invade Tunesia and Algeria (main attack/land warfare), and use the wide-open ports if the French navy bowed down to British demands, as re-supply and landing points for stores and equipment. The entire purpose of a navy is defense against such forms of enemy naval operations in support of land warfare. The ultimatum was a cleverly disguised intention to trade the French Navy in for a "promise" of protecting these with the Royal navy, or a combination of ships under British control.
London: YOU shall be given the choice between deception (a) and dishonor (aka the "false dichtomy").
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: YOU shall break your armistice agreement, by choosing either deception or dishonor, and continue the Battle of France because it is advantageous to US.
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: YOU shall continue the Battle of France, with NO visible potential for success, because neither WE or the USA is lifting as much as a finger to help (effective support). YOU shall "extend Germany" for as long as possible, to the LAST FRENCH SOLDIER, and goad Italy into attacking Tunesia/Algeria which is YOUR territory, away from Egypt, which is OUR territory.
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: Your citizens in France, and your cities and towns, shall goad Germany into continuing their attack, because you broke the armistice with them ...ahem "voluntarily" (he, he,he) so it's ALL YOUR OWN FAULT if the Germans choose to occupy all of France, just like we successfully implemented in Norway in April ("drawing" the bull, off the matador).
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: YOU shall bow down to a mere captain, who doesn't even have the slightest POWER OF NEGOTIATION, who will decide the future of your citizens and your navy.
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: YOU shall sacrifice French cities and towns and French blood, to save OURS, because you were stupid enough to make a treaty with us. Guess what? WE are an island, which we shall largely retreat to, and YOU have a border with our enemy (imbalance in power).
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: YOU shall bleed MORE so that WE shall bleed less, just like Poland before.
Paris: Nah, thanks.
London: And the coolest, COOLEST thing all, YOU are not going to complan about all your BLEEDING, because it was avoluntary decision. We had absolutely nothing to do with YOUR choices.
France: Yeah, right...
London: We have the POWER of the superior mind, because it doesn't matter what WE do, the overwhelming majority of our citizens, in blind trust and incapable of grasping how we tick (strategy), will cheer us along because of our words, and they will do so into their own destruction.
Paris: Yeah, I guess I'm fine with that.
London: Let me rephrase those famous words for you... YOU shall fight on (faraway) beaches, FOR the interests of the British Empire, without even being aware that you are fighting for the British Empire. YOU shall fight in the hills in Tunesia or Algeria, FOR the interests of the British Empire, without even being aware that you are fighting for the British Empire. WE will ensure that the Battle of Britain will start with "a depleted Luftwaffe", and far less firepower, because most of the planes were bombing somewhere else.
(Sounds of cheering crowds in the background)
Paris: I said, nah thanks...
On the 3rd of July 1940, France finally found out what it had signed up for as mere "entente"-best fwiend in 1904, as "buck catcher" (Prof. John Mearsheimer) for the British Empire. It went out the "buck catching"-way, same as Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway before, and the same way the Ukraine is being "extended today", and will most likely go out the same "buck catching"-way.
Obviously, viewed through the lens of systems/strategy (specifically grand strategy), if the "favored nation" os the "buck catcher", it can also be used to goad a rival of the "buck passer" (the greater power in the relationship). The "buck passer/s" can then steer, manage, or moderate the resulting crisis or war.
Even Churchill was not convinced that every London lord would be fine with such a mockery of the term "friendship", and prepared two speeches. One defiant, one conciliatory. But he was wrong, and after the bloodbath there was no need to roll out the "conciliation".
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "freedom and democracy"-argument as a cover story for ulterior motives has a long history.
THE PROTOTYPE COLOR REVOLUTION
"For Jefferson, as he wrote to Abigail (in private), it was the end of an epoch. It was the end of one epoch and the beginning of another in Europe too. ... In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution ... who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile..." Adams and Jefferson : a Revolutionary dialogue / Merrill D. Peterson, Digital Library of Georgia Online Plattform
Jefferson and Adams, no doubt the "inspiration" for hundreds who would follow in their wake, such as Victoria "handing out candy to the MAIDAN" Nuland, as "revolutionary training experts", trying to divide other systems for the own gain.
Setting up such "Color Revolutions" throughout their history, and training/supporting revolutionaries in the name of freedom, whilst in reality simply expanding the own spheres of interests by dividing others, has had a long American history. The divide and rule strategy of potentially damaging opposing systems (in the above case, in Europe), are kept in a state of revolutions and upheaval using the "freedom - revolution - democracy" arguments.
Obviously, at this early point in history Washington DC had very little power. But as her power grew, so did the influence of the own divide and rule/conquer techniques.
Asia beware.
Keep a lookout for the tell-tale signs of a US led divide and rule strategy, to set up Asians against each other as a repeat of history.
Making use of the own geographical advantage of distance, the US advance via staging areas (like Hawaii, or the Philippines 1898) continued one step at a time, as other nations were set up against each other with clear intent, as revealed by private discussions and letters...not the kind words and speeches intended for the consumption of the MSM news readers, since even waaaay back then all MSM was already in the hands of the billionaire class.
A few years later...
"From the outset of hostilities, Roosevelt, his pro-Japanese sympathies notwithstanding, privately wished for the continued presence of Russia in East Asia to serve as a counterweight against Japanese expansionism. He perceived that Japanese domination of the region could prove as detrimental to American "Open Door" policy objectives as had the Russian domination. As early as March 19, 1904, he expressed in a letter to his friend Cecil Arthur Spring Rice (then the secretary to the British delegation in St. Petersburg) a hopeful supposition that "the two powers will fight until both are fairly well exhausted, and that then peace will come on terms which will not mean the creation of either a yellow peril or a Slav peril.” The astonishing pace of Japanese arms through the succeeding months gradually convinced the President that a rapid cessation of the war was necessary to preserve Russian influence in the contested region. Writing to Whitelaw Reid, the American ambassador to Britain, on June 5, 1905, Roosevelt admitted that he "should be sorry to see Russia driven out of East Asia,” and averred that "driven out she will surely be if the war goes on.” In sum, he stated to Senator Henry Cabot Lodge on June 16, 1905, "It is best that (Russia) should be left face to face with Japan so that each may have a moderative action on the other." 1994 Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Jonathan Bennett Ault College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences (pp.49-51)
The same so-called good guys of history, because for these powerful US statesmen and their willing local tools, "crimes are those that others commit" (quote Noam Chomsky).
These dividers of entire nations and continents are above the law.
Don't ever expect the American legal system to punish such advocates of divide and rule and the bloodshed it results in.
Don't expect a majority of Americans to call out their leaders for what they are doing.
They either haven't been informed, or don't understand because of their warmongering MSM, don't know, don't care, or even if they did, are not going to stop their leaders...
The overwhelming number of Americans, in the sinecure comfort of their "mommy's basements"-existences, are not like Noam Cholmsky, John Mearsheimer, or Brian Berletic, and many others who know what their government is up to and are actually willing to speak out.
They are the real heroes of history, following in the footsteps of such "prototype whistleblowers" like Smedley-Butler...
The "revolutionary training"-experts care little about the subsequent bloodshed. They are in complete disregard the biblical rule "do not steal/kill", those responsible will "wash hands in innocence", and "point the finger elsewhere" as deflection from their own actions. It is also arguably the cheapest way to expand the own sphere of influence, and gain markets for own products, which is why they do it.
It is a cheap way to aquire spheres of influence because the heavy lifting, and bloodshed, is borne by local individuals who had been set up against each other, using the emotions of individuals to create little systems of "revolutionary"-spririts...
Asians beware...
The "dividers" WILL come for you again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The entire USA/collective West is NATO, and they were "poking the bear" as collective effort. Now all these weak minds are scurrying around, trying to find somebody more guilty than themselves. An age-old blame game.
N ew
A tlanticist
T erritorial
O peration
The stick poking the bear...or as John Mearsheimer famously predicted, the "buck passers" setting up millions of people in the "favoured country" to "catch the buck" if the effort to encroach/encircle another state failed, so others bleed for the own expansive aims.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans.
- Caucasus region/Black Sea (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those being encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon.
This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their current subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
------------------------------------
The bigger picture can be distorted, and the strategy of divide-and-rule hidden behind narratives of benevolence...
For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented (de facto reality). For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
What lessons can we learn from the current mess in the Ukraine?
Lesson 1:
Don't become the "next Ukraine".
Lesson 2:
Don't forget "Lesson 1".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@invisibleman4827 Yes, that is correct.
London went to war "preventively", because if Germany went through Belgium, there was the threat of the "short war" and a rapid collapse of France.
If Berlin could be convinced not to go through Belgium, it would be a "long war" with German forces bogged down in the mountanous region further south, with narrow gauge railways, bad infrastructure and many natural and military barriers. All of that as the "Russian steamroller" rolled towards Berlin, only 100 miles from the border in Prussia.
While all of that was going on, London could steer the war with their own pre-war contigency war plan: that of an economic warfare plan, while sitting "on the fence, eating popcorn and chips" (which is not a joke of course, but an actual strategy of power).
The last to join, when every other combatant had exhausted itself, the "fence sitter" could swoop in and "march over the ruins" to dictate own very favorable terms.
1
-
@invisibleman4827 You might find it far more than simply "interesting", once you find out how it fits into the "big picture".
If you wish to know who the biggest "losers" of history were, because they fell into the UNDERTOW of their OWN "divide and rule"-strategy of having to submit to the imperialism of a bigger power, then please go to the comments section under the "His--tory Ro..om " educational channel on "Wilhelm II" (documentary) and choose "latest comments first" (three little bars at the top of each comments section).
Great Britain and France did not "win" from the "divide and rule/conquer" system they had tried to set up in Europe after around 1900, and the British Empire did not gain by the own London policy standpoint of making the strongest continental power their "default rival/enemy" system. Britons and French (average citizens) also lost BIG TIME.
Of course, no superficially observed series of events can be concluded to be a non-falsifiable theory, if there is not a substantial amount of evidence to corroborate it, and if the reader wishes, that video comments section has more than 100 essays going back more than 4 years, to provide more than ample evidence for the theory of how Europeans were 1) once "divided and ruled" over (after around 1900), and 2) are still being divided and ruled over (around the year 2000), by outside powers.
I left a comment there for you, right at the top of the comments section.
If you have time we can gladly discuss further there.
rgds
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Reap as you sow counts for all.
The price for a "flattened Germany" would be paid after WW2.
Of course, Germany as a "power", benefited the British Empire.
With this "power" wiped out, Empire became indefensible.
Empire's "fwiends"?
Of course, they had their own agendas.
Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
[Google: The American_Century]
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
[britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
[Google: Operation_Unthinkable 1944]
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
Stalin quickly and instinctively figured out that Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
[Google: Percentages_agreement Churchill and Stalin]
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. Here's Greece. I'll take the rest, including your friends Poland 100%. What are you going to do about it?"
Sow "more than the measure", then "reap" the demise of influence, and your "empire"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USAAF bombed with the intention to curb the German/Axis fighting potential.
The RAF (Bomber Command) bombed with the intent to destroy Germany as a "power".
Unfortunately London did not seem to understand nor follow their own geopolitical "logic", and somehow missed the USA's rise "across the pond".
Or the fact that there might be some long-term grievances resulting from history.
After WW1, the British Empire had already descended one rung, and after WW2 they would lose their markets to the USA, their sphere of interest in Central Europe/Baltics/most of the Balkans to Moscow, the nr.1 position as "ruler of the world, the privilege of "Pax Britannica, both to the USA", their self-determined role of "balancer of powers" for the continent, their stated goal of being the "decider of wars" on the continent, and finally their "Empire".
Sad...
1
-
1
-
The price for a "flattened Germany" would be paid after WW2.
Of course, Germany as a "power", benefited the British Empire.
With this "power" wiped out, Empire became indefensible.
Empire's "fwiends"?
Of course, they had their own agendas.
Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
[Google: The American_Century]
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
[britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
[Google: Operation_Unthinkable 1944]
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
Stalin quickly and instinctively figured out that Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
[Google: Percentages_agreement Churchill and Stalin]
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. Here's Greece. I'll take the rest, including your friends Poland 100%. What are you going to do about it?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "biggest loser" of the systemic conflagrations that were "WW1" and "WW2" was the great divider/grand encircler London/British Empire. Around the year 1900 its lords set out to encircle (by proxy) its biggest contester.
HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books.
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source)
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies.
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
EPISODE I:
"... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies (ALL MORE THAN ADEQUATELY ELABORATED in the below comments section) called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
EPISODES II thru IV:
Lotsa other stuff happening.
EPISODE V:
If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003
Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice.
Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power.
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cause and effect.
Who went into whose homelands 100 years ago?
Hmmmmm??
Hamas, or the Hothis, just like every single "terrorist" organisation ever, at any point in history ever, in any geographical location ever, by any religion ever, are always an effect of oppression.
The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they created themselves with own previous political actions, as terrorists...
Terrorism/Freedom fighting (POV) is always an effect not a cause.
If you live in the west, then you (personally), or your parents, grandparents or previous generations have never ever ever fought anybody your own leaders have not personally set you up against.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That sounds cool.
But unfortunately, that didn't happen.
This happened.
The price for a "flattened Germany" would be paid after WW2.
Of course, Germany as a power, benefited the British Empire.
Empire's "fwiends"?
Of course, they had their own agendas.
Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
[Google: The American_Century]
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
[britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
[Google: Operation_Unthinkable 1944]
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
Stalin quickly and instinctively figured out that Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
[Google: Percentages_agreement Churchill and Stalin]
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. Here's Greece. I'll take the rest, including your friends Poland 100%. What are you going to do about it?"
1
-
So Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
1
-
1
-
@nathancochran4694 They "reaped" what they "sowed".
Whatever policies, strategies, and wars GB ever fought on the continent, was always directed at the strongest power and that was a result of an own flawed policy.
Remember that and read how that unfloded.
It won't take more than 5 minutes to explain why Empire failed.
It "started" quite innocently, way before WW1.
With a London policy.
The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the rival/enemy" as a default setting...
[britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power]
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
The Germans, became "the rival/enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
Make the strongest country/alliance the rival, and "balance it out".
Nothing personal. It could be France one day, Russia the next. It could be "alliance x" one day, it could be "alliance y" the next.
"Temporary friends" one day, "temporary rival/enemy" the next.
After 1871, and especially after German industrialisation, it was simply Germany/the Dual Alliance.
A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.
It came first before all other considerations.
It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding
1) alliances (or no alliances)
2) treaties (or no treaties)
3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord)
4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle)
5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint)
6) when to engage in arms races
7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences/arms limitations or during international political differences.
Go over your history, and spot the "handwriting"...
1
-
1
-
@nathancochran4694 Sadly, yes.
Without being to specific, say "around 1900" was the final time The British Empire, and by extension, the domination of Europe regarding "world rule" could have been saved.
But leaders were actually too stuck in their ways, to implement long overdue changes both regarding internal changes, as well as changes to their brutal "empires" (in short, one could say more "freedom, liberty, and self-determination").
A little known detail is that Wilhelm of Germany actually tried very hard for a few years to implement "an impossible great war scenario" on continental Europe. That history has either been distorted, lied about ("lying by omission") or intentionally misinterpreted (the old "Germany wanted to rule the world"-bs).
It is easy to mislead people, because we grow up in Christian influenced societies we (as individuals) are taught to see the world as "good vs bad", which is actually also a false dichotomy.
That is, however, not the way many of our leaders see the world. They look at maps, countries, regions as areas that need to be dominated, controlled or if not possible, to be "balanced out".
Right or wrong?
Not really relevant...according to these leaders.
Read the policy which predetermined how London would act ("commissions" as well as "omissions") or react to political situations...
It says nothing about bad leaders.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
There was only one consideration.
To uphold a balance.
Wilhelm being a "Trump" of the 1890s had little to do with it. At most, it offered a convenient excuse for own politics, always filtered or prioritized by the Policy of Balance of Powers.
All Wilhelm II wanted was an alliance, friendship treaty, Entente, or likewise (say, a N/A Pact), to protect his people from a possible 2-front attack by France and Russia.
A "New Course" had stopped trying to cosy up to expansionist St. Petersburg/Russia...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_von_Caprivi
...and open up westwards, towards the west (GB and France).
London would cordially steer away from all diplomatic feelers...
After unification and industrialisation, Germany was already the rival in peace/enemy in war in any continental crisis or war, irrelevant of "who started it".
Nothing Berlin could do, or couldn't do, would change that.
It was a policy, made in London, and strict adherence to it, which caused Europe to fail.
They even come up with "policies", to hide the existence of other policies...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splendid_isolation
1
-
@nathancochran4694 No, Churchill and Harris weren't the cause of how history unflolded after "around 1900" (a potential watershed in history), but men like them were.
That history all "sort of" fell into place?
Yes, that is what I used to think.
But the more I read, the more I became convinced that there was "a little help" from agendas. Not trying to flaunt any dumb conspiracy theory nonsense, but simply an explanation of how the world really works.
Because roughly in parallel to Germany on the continent across the English Channel, there was another "new power" rising across the Atlantic, whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”
It was the USA.
Or "maybe they (Europe) won't notice if we sneak up on them..."
The American Century advocates in Washington DC were very good at "biding time" and "keeping a low profile"...
https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-american-century-what-was-really-behind-it
...until they were strong enough to eclipse "the old", and not to care anymore.
With the "leverage" geography gave them (distance from squabbling Europeans), plus a drastically increasing power, as technology shrunk the world, they knew they would just have to wait long enough until the eternally squabbling Europeans had torn themselves to shreds.
Because in the arsenals of M-A-I-N there was another "weapon".
Well-known at the time, and formulated into words by John Quincy Adams: "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country: One is by sword and one is by debt." [**see below, new comment]
Note: it was "a plan" of sorts.
Wait.
Simply wait.
Washington DC/The American Century: "Let's see what happens."
Never let a crisis or war go to waste.
Washington DC: If your rivals are making a mistake, don't interrupt them...
The main big difference?
While London afronted/confronted the strongest continental power/alliance which was Germany and the Dual Alliance at the time, the USA made the strongest power/alliance the "temporary friend" during WW1, only to overpower it commercially/economically/financially after WW2 was over."
Kaiser Bill wished for "a place in the sun" (i.e. "markets", and "spheres of influence").
IMHO they should've just given him one, without the push-back.
It was greed and the control-freak instincts of "old empires", jealously guarding their own.
What unfolded after that, was basically a bed Europe had made for themselves, and with WW1, Versailles (and others like Saint-Germaine, or Trianon) and WW2, had to sleep in.
1
-
@nathancochran4694 **footnote = see above
It's great if one can print endless amounts of currency and lend it to countries at war...
"The U.S. did not suspend the gold standard during the war. The newly created Federal Reserve intervened in currency markets and sold bonds to “sterilize” some of the gold imports that would have otherwise increased the stock of money....[see text]
As a result of World War I the United States, which had been a net debtor country, had become a net creditor by 1919. [24]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
"Debt-trap diplomacy is carried out in bilateral relations, with a powerful lending country seeking to saddle a borrowing nation with enormous debt so as to increase its leverage over it.[1][2]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-trap_diplomacy
Not a newly "invented" political tool at all, of course, as this article seems to imply with "Chy-naah" :-)
It has existed ever since debt was misused as a "tool", both on the micro-level of societies, as well as the macro-level (states, empires).
Obviously, if individuals can be "indentured", so can entire nations, in lieu of "overburdened debt".
It is how Europe "squeezed" every ounce of use out of their colonies, and tried the same with dominions, or the very few independent or sovereign states at the time, whilst giving little back.
It's great if one has a "product" called "debt" selling like the proverbial "hot cakes", and buyers too dumb to realize what they're getting into.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very simply answered:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy.
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
Don't be a sheep.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better.
Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power.
In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. Washington DC used the same techniques (favouritism of specific "buck-catchers") that it had previously used to overpower European states and empires. The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
-------------------------------------
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war being incrementally escalated by the West, in the Ukraine.
This war was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life, on ALL tiers, often by force, coercion, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world).
That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power).
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
The intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia (which incl. the ME), in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Weak leaders lead to hard times in the form of endless crises and wars. Deceitful leaders lead to constant dissent, which mainly benefit those powers which can stay out of mass conflagrations like war, or step in last to gain from the mutual exhaustion of all the others.
Outside powers can insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
----------------------------------
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this desirable disparity continues, so that "gain" can be siphoned off.
It is not "accidental", it is a strategy.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
1
-
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interverence at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
§§§footnote
The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Palestine, in any borders, was never intended to become a "country."
That was always a myth, chanted by the West (politicians, MSM, etc.).
That was Israeli policy right from the start, when founding fathers clearly voiced their discomfort with being a minority within any borders (Quote Ben Gurion, that he wanted a "60% Jewish majority").
How?
That is also clear if one reads the actual words and doctrines of Israel's founding fathers, who had the support of the outside empires.
- war
- etnic cleansing
- the occupation of, or domination over, "Apartheid-like Bantustans"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better.
Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power.
In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. Washington DC used the same techniques (favoritism of specific "buck-catchers") that it had previously used to overpower European states and empires.
After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, so by 1945 the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." (end of)
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided" (the role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative. "Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...)
London went from chief divider to chief of the divided in less than a quarter of a century.
Whatever...
If your state or nation is "not at the table," you are "lunch" (Anthony Blinken).
The dividers telling everybody in no uncertain terms, that their interests and even their lives don't count. There is no doubt that Washington DC is attempting to repeat this "success" (pov) in the rising powers of Asia. Indian Minister of External Affairs Dr. Jaishankar said: "The era of US dominance, which began after the end of the Cold War, has effectively ended." The strategy can be observed to be implemented in the same way as was set up post-1900 in Europe, but in Europe the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer theory) were Great Britain and France. Today, it is India being used in the same role as France was 100 years ago. In case of a wider war in Asia, as India is set up against China, qui bono if all lose?
The technique Washington DC employed up to the year 2000, is an almost exact repeat of the technique they used to overpower Europe around the year 1900: DIVIDE AND RULE.
Divide and rule creates all that follows in its wake:
1) The terrorist.
2) The state of terror.
3) The terror state.
Ukraine, Taiwan, now Poland, and many more will follow, being set up as tools and sacrificial offerings to extend the rule of the American Century.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Alongside other measures, the Treaty of Versailles was a "divide and rule"-strategy, by outside powers, intent on gaining power by dividing Europeans. This simple statement or theory, can be validated by simply investigating the events around the turn of the previous century, and cutting out the distortions created by "dissention" (note: "sowing dissention" in systems, is a means used in the "divide an rule"-technique).
There is a saying stating that if one cannot explain something in a few minutes, that it is probably false:
At Versailles, Europeans were "divided" with a "ruling".
The divide and rule strategy of and over Europeans, can be explained in three seconds...
Of course, no superficially observed series of events can be concluded to be "a non-falsifiable theory" (Carl Popper), if there is not a substantial amount of evidence to corroborate it, and if the reader wishes, the comments section under the Histo4y Room channel's "Wilhelm II" documentary, has more than 100 essays going back more than 4 years, to provide more than ample evidence for the theory of how Europeans 1) were once "divide and ruled" over (around 1900), and 2) are still being divided and ruled over (around 2000), by outside powers.
"The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: wrong.
It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid the divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use the technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MartiniBlankontherest I only know from the newspapers that the Wealth Fund is is used to "plug holes in the budget", and that withdrawals are rare.
If it goes towards benefiting Norwegians in Norway (like building roads, paying pensions, or self-defense), then that should be ok.
These are broad expenses, and if overseen correctly (no corruption, no nepotism, no favoritism, etc), should also be ok.
A broad allocation of funds where they are most needed, leads to widespread wealth, and that leads to social justice, and that leads to a widespread content (by implication, little social unrest, because people who are content rarely support uprisings, revolutions, or violence).
I'm against money going to a single cause, or individuals, or single groups. That will lead to jealousy, fights about "who deserves the money", and then hatred, fuelling internal division.
That, incidentally, is what is happening in the USA.
There is a squabble about how the cake is divided. Too many are being left out, and this leads to the conditions you see in the USA. In the US, if you have a lot of money you move into a gated community with barbed wire and security with guns.
These "gated communities" are the effect of a sick system.
The more the trend towards gated communities, the sicker the nation.
I haven't seen many in Norway, so I'd be grateful if I were you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bismarck's Reinsurance Treaty is often stated as an example of wise diplomacy, in order to avoid "great war"-scenarios, by creating (de jure) deadlock situations.
From wiki:
"The treaty signed by Bismarck and the Russian Foreign Minister Nikolay Girs had two parts:
Germany and Russia each agreed to observe benevolent neutrality should the other become involved in a war with a third country. If Germany attacked France or if Russia attacked Austria-Hungary, this provision would not apply. In those cases, the distinguished bilateral alliances could come into effect. The Reinsurance Treaty only applied when France or Austria-Hungary were the aggressors.
In the most secret completion protocol, Germany would declare neutrality in the event of a Russian intervention against the Ottoman control of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles."
Hmmm. "Most secret" :-)
Of course, the "most secret part" set Russian forces free to serve...ahem..."elsewhere". Wonder where that would be, and who it would be directed at...
Notice however how the "benevolent neutrality" created a situation of deadlock in Central and Western Europe.
Unless Germany was the aggressor, it would remain safe, and it could likewise influence Vienna/Budapest to remain docile in the Balkans.
Benevolent neutrality, in layman's terms, meant that "if you are the aggressor, I'm free to act as I please" (no "tied hands"-clauses).
But if you are the victim of a 3rd party's aggression, then you are free to act as you please, and I'll remain neutral (again, no "tied hands"-conditions).
Yes, Bismarck's wisdom is often praised, but often not analyzed sufficiently regarding later European treaties.
The strategic precedent caused by neutrality treaties or clauses in treaties often have a wide-ranging impact.
In regards to the Reinsurance Treaty it set St. Petersburg free to send the majority of its forces south and east, for as long as the treaty remained intact.
On a sidenote, many years later, a similar "neutrality accord" led to war in the Pacific.
In April 1941 Stalin concluded a neutrality agreement with Japan, meaning that they were now free to "focus elsewhere".
With that, the IJA's (army's grand strategy preference) focus on expansion in China, and the majority of Japan's military resources, was replaced by the IJN's (navy's grand strategy preference) expansion south, into the weakened (by WW2 in Europe) colonial powers' territories in SE Asia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daftwod As for paragraph 1, I'm not an animal. If my ancestors behaved like animals, the least I would do is discredit them....
As for paragraph 2, the so-called "superior" Judeo-Christian values always bragged about so much on your favorite channels...ahem...PragerU and Ben Shapiro, were already in place.
In fact, for around 2,000 years, these values have not changed.
Not following these "values", and simply invading, killing, plundering or establishing colonies of 2nd class citizens had nothing to do with "values".
Are you saying that your ancestors were immoral arseholes, who couldn't read and think?
I'd argue otherwise.
They knew exactly that what they were doing was wrong according to their own beliefs, and simply didn't give a hoot....
Paragraph 3
Dgingis Khan wasn't a Christian.
Self-defense of own property, people, or culture is always OK.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The 4 horsemen.
War (by paid stooges)
Conquest (by proxy)
Famine (far away)
De@th (apologized for)
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Agreed. The USA/collective West is like the allegory of the unbalanced spinning washing machine. Their entire mechanism is to avoid balance, therefore exploiting eternal domestic/international crises/violence is the name of the game. The load inside totally unaware of the "Why?".
___________________
Because..."avoid" is all the machine ever does.
AVOID THE EQUILLIBRIUM
That is the sole aim of the "affairs of the city" which is per definition the system of politics.
Divide and conquer works because not everyone involved knows that they are taking on a role in a power game. That's how the strategy works. Very few people really need to understand it. In English, the principle is called "Useful Innocent/Useful Idiot." From a position of power, you can animate people (usually through money, or ideology) who play a role, but they know not what they do.
The peoples in your "neck o' the woods," have been ruled by division since the beginning.
Because it's easier to divide people based on personal differences than to unite them based on their similarities. Strategically ambivalent elites use this to their own advantage. Now the intention is simply to avoid the unity in your society, in order to "rule" over the dissenters, which is the classic "divide and conquer" principle. This strategy is kept under wraps, due to a systemic desire to be "good", and on the "right side of history", and therefore overemphasizing the actions of philanthropists, political doves, peace activists, religious leaders, etc.
At the same time the activities of political hawks sowing divisions are downplayed, relativized, apologized for, mostly by politicians and strategists as the "story tellers" of history. But also by commoners, who simply parrot the stories without thinking them through, and who are NOT privy to the overall strategy (divide-and-rule in all its intricacies and nuances).
The main interest of these people for which we have been fighting wars for centuries has been the relationships between organized systems of finance and power, and systems of resources and manpower. Because united they are the only power that could threaten this group. They must make sure that the unity of others does not happen. ... For these elites ... the greatest fear is an overall creation of a unity of technology, capital and natural resources, and labor, as the only combination that has frightened the elites for centuries. So how does this play out? Well, they have already put their cards on the tilted table. They draw their invisible lines onto society.
Today all our so-called "leaders" are too weak to create systemic unity, to avoid their "friends" simply drawing lines all over the place, which they cower down to and must obey.
Like a ratchet, one click at a time, the "marching empire." Endless wars, constant disagreements, using imperialism to stay on top. Using "levers" of lies and distrust, via power players. Creating favorites: favoring the proxies who bow down and sacrifice themselves for the mastah. Pointing fingers, everywhere else, using the POWER of the mainstream media.
Divide-and-rule/conquer.
The oldest trick in the book...
Who has the POWER? Who has always had the GEOPOSITIONAL advantage of power to rule? The GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all other "buck catchers" (tools and other instruments of POWER in the Roman era style), but could not be reached themselves at any point in a historical timeline due to a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic- or political advantage?
“Divide-and-rule/conquer” as a standard strategy of power and thus the cause of nearly all conflicts in the world connects the dots on the timeline of history. Being far from the events resulting from their own meddling and political activities and being able to reach all other regions, but could not be reached themselves.
All they want is peace, they say. Who gathers the pieces of the great wealth and systemic gains when everyone else has failed to unite?
Different terms. Different eras. Same games...
The opposition that wants unity and equillibrium in a region is the "bad guy."
We, who seek true peace and harmony, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized.
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D chess." Everything you know is a variation of reality. They are playing 5D chess with the minds of 2D checkers players, within the compartmentalized brains of people who think they are smart.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
gotsda Yes, harassment is already illegal.
It came first.
Harassment.
Definition:
"Generally, criminal harassment entails intentionally targeting someone else with behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize them. Not all petty annoyances constitute harassment. Instead, most state laws require that the behavior cause a credible threat to the person's safety or their family's safety."
So who started it, by following in a truck, by setting up a roadblock, shouting around and brandishing a shotgun?
[Note, they had the choice of following at a safe distance, until the police arrived]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl/Historian)
Today, the USA has practically admitted that it misuses smaller nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the current war in the Ukraine:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.” Taken from a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region. In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script". Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" or "using little nations" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
Some things never change...
"The policy which Britain has been pursuing for the last two centuries has brought her prosperity and greatness. After each victory, Britain seems, on the surface to have gained for herself no advantage whatever; all she did, she claimed to be an act of international chivalry and justice but a deeper analysis of British statesmen's claims reveals that they never speak the truth. Britain's key policy is to attack the strongest country with the help of weaker countries and then to join the weakened enemy in checking the growth of other countries and so on, and so on. British foreign policy has remained basically unchanged for two centuries. When Britain befriends or colonizes another country, the purpose is not to maintain a cordial friendship for the sake of friendship but to utilize that country as a tool to fight all threats to her supremacy. Therefore Britain always remains in a commanding position by making other countries fight her wars while she herself reaps the fruits of victory." Taken from The Vital Problem of China by Sun Yat-Sen, 1917
Should we eternally defend these long-dead historical "lords" who sacrificed pawns so their own crumbling "Empire" could survive a few more years?
Whilst these "fine gentlemen" in suites and bowler hats, scrambled to invent tax havens to safeguard the riches they had looted and raked in for a few hundred years, they used emotional arguments to cause outrage in times of crises, or sent the lower classes scrambling for the muddy trenches in times of war...
These tax havens they created spared their own obscene wealth, while the middle-classes and poor "masses" bore the burden of "Empire".
These fine elites sacrificed pawns following a "priority list": first to go were the "pawns" abroad, then followed by such in the own country, while skimming the cream off the top for themselves.
After WW1, they already knew "Empire" was on the way out, but preferred playing the game (strategies) with human lives just a little longer.
(Evidence: Search for The Spider's Web documentary on the Timeline Channel, here on YT).
Though it isn't possible to say when the American Century will go down in the same way as the British Empire once did, I will predict what will happen.
Maybe it will last another dozen years.
Maybe two-dozen.
Maybe even another fifty years...
Who knows?
Whatever.
The first "hedge fund manager"-types are already betting against the US dollar as the world reserve currency.
Such "hewoes" and "patwiots", lol
They will take their accrued "assets", and and the obscene wealth and profits raked in over the past American Century, to tax havens WHEN America's "century" implodes: leaving millions of middle-class and poor Americans to rub their eyes while wondering wtf happened...
History will repeat itself, unless the hegemon changes its deceitful ways (Google: "What does the Bible say about deceitful friends", to discover how history repeats itself in endless cycles).
The Founding Fathers once described London as “rich, proud, hectoring, swearing, squibbing, carnivorous” (Jefferson), therefore the perfect type of character flaws in a nation's leadership which one can "smear honey around the mouth", then infiltrate and then overpower: Which is what the USA did after 1895, "starting" with the first Venezuela Crisis.
Didn't anybody notice?
Washington DC sold out the "protection" they had offered to a "little nation" called Venezuela in the form of the Monroe Doctrine, as a sacrificial gift to London, and a "friendship" which could drive a wedge between arising European attempts at more unity.
Nope.
Nobody noticed.
Today, the new rich, proud, hectoring, swearing, squibbing, carnivorous "rulers of the world" in Washington DC are imitating exactly what they critized a quarter of a century before.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Seeing how most of the comments are slogans and appeals to emotion, I'll just jump into the fray.
For hundreds of years, the British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations around the world. Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images").
Looks a lot like Coventry, doesn't it?
Kagoshima, Copenhagen, Canton, Sebastopol (Krim War), and and dozens of others.
Such fun to have propaganda ministers coining the term "Copenhagenization" to mock the children they burnt alive...
From wiki, regarding the practice: "...the Political Register: 'Oh, that example of Copenhagen has worked wonders in the world!...I (would) like to see the name of that city become a verb ... 'cities will be copenhagenized' is an excellent phrase. It's very true, that Sir John Warren would copenhagenize New York with very little trouble..."
Excellent indeed...
When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets" and bomb(ard) countries without declaring war. The locals defending their own? Mowing down natives armed with spears, with machine guns? Pfffft. Nobody cared...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps (called "penal colonies"), and terror bombing innocents called Air Policing...
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s killed their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
All of a sudden, they were sooooo tired of all that "Empire"-stuff...
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
1
-
The distorters of history lie about everything. Even the Bible they claim to love so much....
When one does wrong, it doesn't matter how one justifies these wrongs.
Or, the true meaning of the Biblical "reap the whirlwind".
In the Bible (Hosea), Israel allied with the devil (Assyria), rather than trust in God, and subsequently lost their worldly "empire" (Hosea).
The biblical wisdom of not allying with evil (Stalin/communism) has been distorted over time, to become a justification for own actions ("reap the whirlwind" = punishment).
A fallacy.
It is only half the story, or "lying by omission".
Because "evil" has even less scrupples than oneself, and therefore allying with evil will mean that one will get screwed over by the devil one has allied with.
Read Hosea.
Even if one is an atheist, these wisdoms are based on thousands of years of human observations.
By own admission, GB allied with the devil (Stalin), and then set off to destroy the German people, rather than letting the two devils (Hitler and Stalin) "slug it out" to mutual destruction on the Eastern Front, while concentrating on the own priorities (Western Desert, Battle of the Atlantic, etc.)
1
-
It's "divide and rule".
It's ALWAYS divide and rule if governments defend wrongs against the wishes of most of its inhabitants.
For the "dividers", the resulting division is always good. They can rule over the fear, the discord, the "finger pointers", and the "pointed at" alike.
The "winners"?
It those who send 3.8 billion to fund Israel each year, in Washington DC, almost all of it flowing back to the USA in the form of arms purchases...
NATO? It has been the "battering ram" for the USA/collective West ever since the end of the Cold War. It set up human beings as instruments of power, so that the true POWERS can stay out of wars, and steer/finance/manage the chaos, crises, and resulting wars...
It's how "divide and rule" works...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, because WW1 was a war of choice.
Because each country which joined WW1 did so voluntarily, with the exception of Belgium.
There were no binding defense treaties (like NATO is today). The leaders of each country therefore implemented what is known as "war of choice". Each nation only has its own historical leaders to blame.
Blaming Germany for it, is a fallacious form of argumentation known as "outcome bias". That means that historical decisions once taken are judged by the outcome, rather than judged by what the original intention of the decision was.
As far as "poor Belgians" as Casus Belli for GB and the Empire....
First off: "poor Belgians" was an emotional argument, same as "WMDs" and "Saddam Hussein involved in 9/11" back in 2003....and its always the same people who are going to be fooled by it. The young, and the ignorant.
Belgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB, and could have stated their conditions for British neutrality (for example, but not limited to: no German navy actions in the Channel, no occupation of French Channel ports, respect of neutrality declarations, no expansion of the war to the colonies, respect of freedom of the seas, etc.)
In fact, German leaders would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
According to historians, the British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war", in other words, Belgium was Casus Belli.
Correct?
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". In other words, no invasion, no Casus Belli...
Also correct?
Berlin therefore approached London, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
Foreign minister Grey refused, and gave a typical diplomatic "none answer", making it clear that GB would have joined the war at some future point in time.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
Belgium was a so-called geostrategic barrier to ensure the Policy of Balance of Power, and protect the British Empire. GB fought WW1 for own interests, not the "safety of others" or any other emotional argument.
1
-
@neddevine7692 1
Russia and Serbia didn't have a defense pact.
Wilhelm's antics can be filed under "The Big Stick", and not "wanting war".
https://www.britannica.com/event/Big-Stick-policy
Had Russia backed down, Belgrad would have caved in, there would have been an Austrian led investigation to the assissination, which would have concluded that Belgrad was involved (see the Black Hand as we know today), which would then have resulted in a regime change as had been the European way for centuries.
2.
France refused neutrality.
By refusing neutrality, like Italy did, France stated that it would attack Germany (Plan XVII)
3.
GB refused neutrality.
By refusing neutrality, GB stated that it would join at some later point, irrelevant of whether Belgium was invaded or not. With only 2 enemies, German leaders would have opted for their shelved "Aufmarschplan II" and there would have been no invasion of Belgium.
London declared war in order to "Balance the Power".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Note: neither France nor GB were faced by a real and imminent danger, and could simply have avoided war, by declaring their neutrality.
Neither Italy, France or GB were in a position of danger or threat, and could have chosen/opted out of the war if they had wanted, by declaration of neutrality.
Only Italy chose this option.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Advocates defending their systemic greed, trying to hide behind "good deeds," are usually easily exposed: they utter fallacies like "defending (superior) Western values", whereas in reality all they are doing is defending the dividers, who operate and instigate from superior positions of power. They think reality disappears if they simply do not address it.
Their own inbuilt bias means they are defending greed in the form of "50% of the world's wealth for us" (to quote US strategist Kennan), because what they don't realize is that they were born into a belief system. The main reason why that belief system persisted, was because of the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION or POWER. Nothing else.
This isn't an fallacy in reasoning, or a false premise, or syllogism.
Overwhelmingly, people who are born into the belief system capitalism, will perceive it to be god's gift to mankind. Overwhelmingly, people who are born into the belief system corporatism, will perceive it to be god's gift to mankind. Overwhelmingly, people who are born into the belief system democracy, will perceive it to be god's gift to mankind.
All belief systems, mainly persists because advocates are born into the belief system (observation) or have been coddled into believing in it being superior as they grew up.
They are defending "greed" in the form of "50% for us" (or variations of that), for the minority, and that this minority of the world which is based in the USA or collective West, 12% of the world, has the right to rule over the rest of the world, by division.
Greed can be proven to be the MOTIVATION of the top tiers, even if not necessarily by all who live in such systems, and it can be corroborated by observation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
@philliprobinson7724 Historical observation has shown that those who wield power and wealth, do not implement measures (incl. the Magna Carta) which impacts their ability to exert power and influence, and thereby rule, chiefly through "divide and rule/conquer" strategies.
That makes the Magna Carta an ancillary (reality) and the strategy of "divide and rule/conquer" the indicative.
no human rules of coexistence have ever made the divide and rule startegy "illegal", which for the various elites, is all that counts.
Which is older? Which therefore (according to Lindy's Law, most likely to prevail?
Note that in an exchange based on observations (realism) and definitions, that these cannot be "countered" by an opinion or a personal standpoint. The answer to an observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinately.
Divide and rule as a strategy, which is long-lasting and durable, is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired. The "oh so fine" British Lordships thought they could play divide and rule/conquer games with the world, and in the end British citizens lost bigtime, as their own Lordships "...ran off with all the f%cking money..." (quote = George Carlin/ reality = tax havens).
No, this is not a "yet another conspiracy theory," but elaborated and provided with sufficient evidence, and inductive/deductive reasoning on the other channel/video.
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
David Ben-Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
“Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. … Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice.”
— David Ben Gurion. Quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan’s “Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.
“We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return.”
David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar’s Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are not being "persecuted" Miss Chow.
That is your straw man...
You are being called out because of trying to restrict the rights of fellow students, based on these students personal convictions.
Here's your reality check...
Some people are born deaf.
Some people are born without arms and legs.
Are you nice to them, despite them being different?
Some people are born with the "wrong" brain.
In around 0,5% of births, a "female brain" is born into a male body, or vice versa. Your god, according to your belief, wanted it like that.
Obviously, if not, he would not allow it to happen.
https://www.papermag.com/victorias-secret-trans-model-2639631221.html
Be nice.
Don't discriminate, because they want the same rights you already have.
That is the right not to be discriminated against, based on their personal convictions ...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mountaindew7190 https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/10-anti-gay-myths-debunked
That should address all your points.
When I wrote about the brains being born into the wrong body, notice how I used quotation marks.
Obviously I know that there is no such thing as a "female brain" (only 75% of the size and mass of a "male brain", or vice versa). What I mean, is explained in detail in the article. It isn't as simple as stating "it's only genetics", or "its only environment", or "it's only the a history of abuse as a child". There are multiple factors that cause people to be LGBTQ.
Brains are a small part genetically different, but mostly "wired" as one grows up.
I stand by my principles.
It is not for me or you or anybody else to decide what another human being choses for him/herself.
You have not answered my point about "marriage" (as a legal union before the state) or "wedding/ceremony" (as a religious choice for believers).
As far as I'm concerned, the guidelines to be followed by a state, are not for any one entity to decide upon.
That, religious people can do in their churches, and on their turf.
Outside, and in society, all people have the same rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wmthewyld The interpretation of any code of conduct is subjective.
That includes Christian codes of conduct.
A belief system is only as good as the believer, and nothing in the Bible will stop a terrible person from carrying out terrible deeds.
Laws of a country are the same "codes of conduct".
If you go to church, do all the ceremonies, pray to God and all that, then turn around and steal, you're not a good person. Correct?
If you know the laws of the land, and don't adhere to these codes of conduct (intended to make society better for all), you're not a good person.
If you know about the Golden Rule, and don't follow it, you're not a good person.
If you wiggle, squirm, slime, bend, spin, twist and distort the meaning of words, to suit an own personal conviction, going against the simplicity of the Golden Rule, you're not a good person.
Reeeeeeeeeeaaaaallly simple.
Therefore, your example of Nazis in Germany is moot, since Christians also aided the Nazis in their rule and in their actions.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-german-churches-and-the-nazi-state
Simply stating that these were not "really Christians" is a typical lazy apologist's attempt at deflection...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wmthewyld I did not quote a certain unknown whoever called Jason Russo with "People who declare themselves god of their own little universe, but then forcing others to accept what they have declared as truth".
MountainDew7 posted that, note, which you are now trying to defend.
I posted an article about Kim Davis, who did just that.
Note, that Davis was given a job to do.
She was paid to do a job, for her fellow citizens.
She was paid BY ALL TAXPAYERS to carry out what a majority consensus had considered as "normal", with suitable "laws" corresponding.
With me so far?
Is all this too complicated for you to grasp?
This job, among other things, was to issue marriage licenses ACCORDING TO THE LAW. GET IT? Not according to her "own truth", or "the god she's playing in her own private universe" (la di da ...Jason Russo, whoever the hell that is... ho hum).
GET IT?
You do your job.
Do what citizens pay you to do.
Follow the law.
GET IT?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wmthewyld
I've posted half a dozen links to you (note, two weeks ago...scroll up) with an objective description of what took place, and why.
If you don't read, that's your problem.
Stay ignorant.
From dailycal.com
"More than 300 people attended Wednesday night’s regular ASUC Senate meeting, during which many protested ASUC Senator Isabella Chow’s anti-LGBTQ+ statements, with some calling for her resignation.
Before the meeting began, people gathered on Lower Sproul, carrying a banner that read, “Senator Chow Resign Now.” Student Action, the party that Chow ran with, recently cut ties with her over the anti-LGBTQ+ comments she made during the Oct. 31 meeting. Three senate resolutions were also introduced at Wednesday’s meeting, including two aimed at increasing the populations of marginalized student groups on campus.
The Queer Alliance and Resource Center, or QARC, organized the protest after Chow made anti-LGBTQ+ comments and abstained from supporting a resolution against the Trump administration’s proposed Title IX changes regarding gender at the Oct. 31 meeting. QARC also created a petition calling for Chow’s resignation.
Chow said she could not support these two resolutions because she believes that God created man and woman, that marriage should only be between a man and a woman and that certain lifestyles “conflict with what is good, right and true.”
More than 100 protesters spoke during public comment. Many referenced religion and Christianity, quoting scripture and sharing personal experiences as Christian members of the LGBTQ+ community. Several speakers read anonymous statements from community members, while others highlighted the prevalence of violence against the community. Several speakers invoked Chow’s own words, describing themselves and their identities as “good, right and true.”
“Reconciling the LGBT identity with religion is not a Christian issue — it’s a bigot’s issue,” said campus freshman Kaelyn Schlegel during public comment. “If you truly believe what you claim to, that is one thing, but don’t hide behind Christianity because that would mean twisting the beauty of the Christian religion and making it something it is not.”
During the nearly three hours of public comment, Chow stayed in her seat and watched those commenting"
[end of article]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wmthewyld Google "confusing cause and effect".
The LGBTQ do not enjoy protection under the Constitution for their "personal convictions".
Christi and do.
You are not allowed to discriminate against Christians (any religion) based on their religion.
In other words, a Muslim baker is not allowed to refuse a Christian couple a cake with a cross on it, based on his own "personal convictions".
All religions have this privilege for their "personal convictions".
In other words, concerning religions, this works every way (in other words, Scientologists ate not allowed to refuse cakes with Jewish symbolism, etc. etc.)
The Constitution does not mention race or gender, so that was added by laws making it illegal to discriminate against race, then women.
That was later expanded (under Obama) to include discrimination against the LGBTQ community (Title IX).
Whichever way you wish to twist and turn it, it is "conservatives" or "Christians" like Ms Chow which wish to take this protection away from the LGBTQ, based on personal convictions and what should be considered "good and true".
[Note here, "simulated" as I've stated many times before, because it wasn't a "real" vote]
They had this protection for a few years, and now it is being taken away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matsjonsson9492 You mean Trump "beat ISIS" like the good ol' USA "beat the Taliban" in Afghanistan?
ROTFL.
You don't "beat" an ideology by bombing them.
Only an idiot would make such conclusions, if there is an entire history proving such lame arguments wrong.
Did "bombing Nazis" in WW2 end "Nazism"?
LOL, no. It just stopped one group of Nazis for a moment in time, but the ideology still exists. Lesson to be learned? Bombing people doesn't stop an ideology.
Did "bombing commies in Vietnam" end Communism?
Nope, it actually fuelled the war and lead to bandwaggoning and an embarrassment for the USA, which crawled away from the mess and death they created like the bunch of militarist rats they were...
Because guess what? The Vietnamese people were tired of 400 years of western colonialism, and would simply chose powers who'd support them in this cause. By GOLLY, who would have thought causality is also so logical....
Communism is still there despite millions of tons of bombs being dropped on "commies"...
Did "bombing Taliban mooozies" in Afghanistan end radical Islamists?
No, it just temporarily stopped one group of Islamists/Jihadists for a moment in time, which then simply morphed into the next group of radical Islamists/Jihadists which is ISIS...
So, now you're patting your American buddies on their backs, saying "well done, ISIS is dead", while I'm saying "LMFAO, DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH"....
Not because I want it to be like that, buy because it is simply causal, and what will happen if the root cause is not addressed
GTFO of their world.
Trump did not "stop" anything.
He didn't stop ISIS by withdrawing from Syria, in exactly the same way that Obama didn't stop radical Islamists in Iraq, by simply withdrawing from Iraq.
Here is what dumbasses don't get.
The root cause is still there..western meddling
You stop terrorism by pulling the rug from underneath their feet.
Removing the grievances which cause it, the same way as the ANC, FARC, IRA, PLO, Basque Separatists, and all other terrorists organisations were "stopped".
Like Mao said.
The terrorist swims in a population like a fish swims in the sea.
You don't like radical Islamists? Then tell your buddies to gtfo of the ME....
1
-
1
-
@matsjonsson9492 I prefer to understand why and how things happen.
On the micro level, the same happens to people who are lured by radical ideas, as happens on the macro level (nations and states).
In the same way Vietnam was lured by Communism (note, Ho Chin Mihn went all the way to Versailles in 1919, hoping that "the new order" would grant his people some liberties....which didn't happen).
You could say that the Vietnamese people turned to assholes (commies) in order to get away from other assholes (colonial masters)....all causal.
On the micro level, people turn to radical ideas if their personal lives are screwed up. Irrelevant of whether their lives are f*cked up because of their own mistakes, or due to the greed and meddling of others.
The best way to counter it is a close knit society, with social workers, who can help these people out and turn them away from radical ideas before it takes over their brains completely.
[Note here, that I will always analyse whatever you write, and offer a solution. I'm not making excuses for criminals. The best way to avoid radicalisation of mostly youths, is to prove the "pied pipers" and their bs wrong]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised.
A form of warfare GB could not really afford.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tolkien said "they were all of them deceived..."
For example the mistaken "logic" of "we had to aim for a cathedral and burn down entire cities because maybe we would hit a factory" turned the entire notion of collateral damage upside down.
They are using the facts of 1941 (basically, the Butt Report), to justify actions undertaken years after that, by which time the conclusions of the report had become largely outdated.
A few days after the Area Bombing Directive was issued, the RAF carried out an attack on the Renault works in Billancourt, Paris. This attack was also carried out in the dead of night, but the factory was destroyed. This was achieved by simply changing the tactics. During this attack, experienced crews would be used as pathfinders, and the mass of rookies and average blokes would follow in a bomber stream. They only thing they would have to do is aim for the marked target area. The result was that the factory was completely destroyed.
Still, today, historians don't mention this.
Why not?
This attack clearly shows that the target area was decided on by choice, not dictated by circumstances ( "the weather", "inexperienced crews", "bad navigation", and all those other excuses constantly dished up by our historians).
During this raid, it was the mainly the tactics which had changed. The crews no longer flew to the target individually, as they did pre-1942. Instead, expert pathfinders 'marked' the targets, and the rest simply bombed what had been marked.
Using the Paris attack as an example, Bomber Command should have 'area bombed' (note here, NOT to be confused with 'precision bombing') the German factories and yards. This was also suggested by the MEW during the war, but Churchill didn't value the advice of this group of economical warfare advisors. Sure, a lot of civilians would still have died, BUT a vital factory or yard would have stopped functioning, for weeks, months, or even (with a certain degree of luck) permanently.
Allied soldiers paid the price the folly of choosing city centers as the main target.
They died needlessly on the battlefields, killed by superior German weapons which should have been destroyed in the factories....
My advice?
Don't simply believe everything dished up to you by historians. Use your own head and think.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs.
Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent.
Of course, London already knew this.
That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem:
Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900).
And so "poor little Belgium" was born.
Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"...
France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war.
The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about turn mind-control trick :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first, and the truth had to be bent to fit the policy.
Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals.
It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up.
Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights".
It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
1
-
1
-
Are you a citizen of the world, and wish to contribute a small share to end the grip the global elites have on the narrative of history?
Are you American, or European? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from the multitude of military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any platform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Why do we know this? Because good people have been voting, and posting, and debating, and using their freedom of speech, and protesting for hundreds of years, but the grip the elites have on the plebs has NEVER changed.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting all international big brands.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small local companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever and whenever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get side-lined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone," or "but, but, but...your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be perfect...
Methodology: JDI and make it a long term lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk trend, because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate interests. Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small local companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Do you wish to fight meddling globalist empires?
If those who have the money use their competitive advantages to spread lies and misdirection via the MSM, we must use our numbers to spread the truth of what happened.
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influential GLOBAL ELITES only REALLY start "caring" (sic.) when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
London went to war twice, by own admission, to "balance powers" on the continent...
London's standpoint, by own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, for those lacking the necessary comprehension skills: the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
And so they played the "balancing games".
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
How absolutely funny...
They gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire.
Good riddance.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They "hopped on the scale", in times of peace and in times of war, whatever side was the weakest, to counter the ...ahem..."dictatorship" of the strongest country/alliance/power.
And so, they "hopped" their way into extinction.
1
-
The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Great Britain did not "win" from the "divide and rule/conquer" system they had set up in Europe, as a matter of an own London policy standpoint of making the strongest continental power their "default rival/enemy" system.
Britons (average citizens) lost BIG TIME.
If you wish to truly understand the "how" and "why", then go to the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel.
The "oh so fine" British Lordships thought they could play divide and rule/conquer games with the world, and in the end British citizens lost bigtime, as their own Lordships "...ran off with all the f%cking money..." (quote = George Carlin/ reality = tax havens).
No, this is not a "conspiracy theory."
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section):
Most of what we are fed by our systems, as "rote leaning" details, are "99% ancillary details": not saying these are untrue or wrong, but simply that they are not as important on the ranking or "tiers" of events as geopolitics and grand strategy. For these geostrategists, divide and rule/conquer is their main strategy, regardless of what you as an individual believe.
1
-
POWER. DOESN'T. CARE.
Maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are trapped in a "divide and rule world", and it has been all about PROFITS and CONTROL over the people.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dreikoo @Dreikoo My previous comment wasnt posted because of a link it contained.
I'll post it again:
The rest of the world sure hopes you can sort out your internal squabbles, and finally elect a decent leadership.
Today's terrorist actions were however "blowback" from a failed Cold War experiment to destabilize wider regions of the Soviet Union, as the apologetic new Saudi rulers are trying to "explain away" these days...
[Google : Saudi Prince apologists for Saudi finding of Saudi Wahabbism in the Cold War]
Actions coming back to bite us in the butt.
Cause and effect.
The Arabian Peninsula was the scene of wars for centuries, as the Saud family vied for power.
Nobody cared much, and even colonialism spared these "empty worthless deserts" until 1937. Apart from the coastal regions (geostrategy/naval bases/controlling the sea lanes) nobody in the West cared much.
One could say that the discovery of oil was a mixed blessing for the region.
So suddenly, after hundreds of years of local crisis and wars, sh*tloads full of money poured into every imaginable cause, including the funding of radical (religiously indoctrinated far-right) extremists to "counter" the "socialist" tendencies of the local family orientation (and tribalism) of the traditional ME cultures all carried out with western goodwill (as long as it was "anti-communist", it was "good")
The ME both today and after WW2 (Cold War) was a contested sphere of influence, and the foreign puppet masters in Moscow, Washington, and Beijing, are pulling the strings.
Each with an assortment of local client states.
1
-
1
-
Die Völker Eurasiens, einschließlich Westeuropas (die meisten davon sind Christen) und Westasiens (die meisten davon sind Semiten), wurden jahrhundertelang von Fremden gespalten und beherrscht.
Weil es einfacher ist, Menschen aufgrund persönlicher Unterschiede zu spalten, als sie aufgrund ihrer Gemeinsamkeiten zu vereinen. Strategisch ambivalente Fremde nutzen dies zu ihrem eigenen Vorteil. In der Ära des europäischen Imperialismus schleppte London zunächst seinen Juniorpartner Paris mit, und nach 1945, als der Einfluss der europäischen Kolonialmächte abnahm, übernahm Washington DC einfach die Rolle des Spalters (während des Kalten Krieges war die ganze Welt der Spielplatz). Jetzt besteht die Absicht einfach darin, die Einheit Eurasiens zu vermeiden, um über die Andersdenkenden zu „herrschen“, was dem klassischen „Teile und Herrsche“-Prinzip entspricht.
„Das Hauptinteresse der Vereinigten Staaten – für die wir seit einem Jahrhundert Kriege führen (den Ersten, Zweiten und den Kalten Krieg) – war die Beziehung zwischen Deutschland und Russland. Denn vereint sind sie die einzige Macht, die uns bedrohen könnte. Und wir müssen sicherstellen, dass das nicht passiert. … Für die Vereinigten Staaten … ist die größte Angst deutsche Technologie, deutsches Kapital und russische natürliche Ressourcen, russische Arbeitskräfte als einzige Kombination, die den Vereinigten Staaten seit Jahrhunderten Angst einjagt. Wie also läuft das ab? Nun, die USA haben ihre Karten bereits auf den Tisch gelegt. Es ist die Linie vom Baltikum bis zum Schwarzen Meer.“ – George Friedman, Stratfor, Februar 2015
Heute sind ihre Führer zu schwach, um sich zu vereinen.
Endlose Kriege, ständige Meinungsverschiedenheiten, unter Einsatz des IMPERIALISMUS.
„Hebel“ der Lügen und des Misstrauens einsetzen, unter Einsatz von MACHTSPIELERN.
Favoriten schaffen: Bevorzugung der STELLVERTRETER, die sich beugen.
Mit dem Finger zeigen, überall sonst, unter Einsatz der MACHT der Mainstream-Medien.
Teile und Herrsche.
Der älteste Trick der Welt...
Tausend Jahre alt. Tausend Jahre bewährt.
Wer hat die MACHT? Wer hatte (in allen historischen Fällen im Nahen Osten/in der Levante) den GEOGRAPHISCHEN VORTEIL, alle anderen kleinen Geldbringer (Werkzeuge und andere MACHTinstrumente im Stil der Römerzeit) erreichen zu können, aber selbst aufgrund eines geografischen, technologischen, organisatorischen, militärischen, strategischen oder politischen Vorteils zu jedem beliebigen Zeitpunkt einer historischen Zeitlinie nicht erreicht werden konnte?
Teile und herrsche verbindet die Punkte auf der Zeitachse der Geschichte.
Wer hatte (in allen historischen Fällen im Nahen Osten/in der Levante) den GEOGRAPHISCHEN VORTEIL, weit von den Ereignissen entfernt zu sein, die sich aus den eigenen Einmischungen und politischen Aktivitäten ergaben, und alle anderen Regionen erreichen zu können, aber selbst als Hegemonie zu keinem beliebigen Zeitpunkt einer historischen Zeitachse erreicht werden konnte?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. Alles, was sie wollen, ist Frieden, und weil sie das sagen, muss es wahr sein, aber wer sammelt die Teile des großen Reichtums und der systemischen Gewinne ein, wenn alle anderen es nicht geschafft haben, sich zu vereinen?
Andere Reiche. Andere Ära. Gleiche Spiele ...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Neocons" (per definition) are not a new phenomena. They are simply warmongers, packed into a different "modern sounding"-euphimism, describing how the imperialist mindset has always ticked...
All playboy empires who fear long-term binding alliances, which are mutually beneficial, eventually paint themselves into a corner at that point in time their "allure" as the "playboy" fades away...
For London, and the British Empire, this was 1945.
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk (1851–1914), an Austrian economist, observed that decisions made with small time perspectives can have a seductive quality:
"It occurs frequently, I believe, that a person is faced with a choice between a present and a future satisfaction or dissatisfaction and that he decides in favor of lesser present pleasure even though he knows perfectly well, and is even explicitly aware at the moment he makes his choice, that the future disadvantage is the greater and that therefore his well-being, on the whole, suffers by reason of his choice. The "playboy" squanders his whole month's allowance in the first few days on frivolous dissipation. How clearly he anticipates his later embarrassment and deprivation! And yet he is unable to resist the temptations of the moment." [wiki]
Long term stability in Europe was "sacrificed" for short-term gain: the story of the British Empire, and their "London schemers" (see below comments section for the suitably evidence, from different periods on the timeline).
While London had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE it could "hop around" onto suitors, "getting some" over here, and "getting some" over there, playing out these suitors against each other. Sufficient evidence is provided in the below comments section, so no "conspiwacy theowy"-insinuations or even (my personal favorites) "I bet you support dictators", or "boohoo you hate my puwe little empire" (ROFL). No, I do not love, nor do I hate: I analyse, so no "this is just a false premise"-allegations please :-)
Note, that this thread contains the "1% of history which counts", which will not necessarily match up with the stories you are used to hearing, and which you like to listen to...
Up to WW2, London played out the already divided peoples of Europe (and their ambitious leaders) AGAINST each other, so that they could sit on the fence and only have to (mainly) fund the Royal Navy and their specialized colonial armies, for own gain, which was funneled to the very top: London.
After 1945, and without London having a say in matters (§§§footnote), their "fwiends" in Washington DC declared their "old fwiends" (commies) as "new enemies", and the old setup of the continent as had been historically overwhelmingly influenced by London, was replaced by a new setup for *Europe (which incl.London and the British Empire,* from the standpoint of the "new lords" of the world in Washington DC).
Did you spot "what actually happened"?
The key words have been highlighted, in order to ease the conclusion for you a bit...
"Non scolae, sed vitae discimus" means that we should study for life, not for the lecture hall.
As that old saying goes: as you sow, so shall you reap.
London sowed division while they had the power to do so, and in the end they bacame the "tool" of another divider (Washington DC), who now had the sole GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE (§§§§footnote).
See what happens if you're "playboy" who abhors "binding marriages"?
You end up with syph ....oh, never mind...
(and, "no", that allegation cannot be "thrown back, hot potato style"-at Berlin, because as the below essays reveal, Berlin actually DID try to create a global balance of power but had their efforts torpedoed every time, by the own neighbors, or by London and Washington DC who "employed" these neighbors as "buck catchers", steering/managing/moderating these against each other, for the own systemic gain aka "a divided continent/Europe" aka "perspective").
§§§Footnote
Note that when Churchill made his "Iron Curtain" speech (1946), that he was no longer IN POWER in London, and that the new left-leaning London power players would have looooved to have Moscow as a continental "global balancing tool", and a share of the markets/political influence in Europe (Percentages Agreement) in order to balance out the USA's power. Washington DC stated "sowwie, no more London games", and declared communism as the "new rival/enemy" of all, depriving London of this potential to "hop around". Washington DC declared this, whether these "mutually exhausted masses" agreed or not, and even London and Brits as "pwoud winners" had no other choice but to sink enourmous amounts of Pounds Stirling on a "continental occupying army", depleting what would otherwise have been diverted to the Royal Navy and small specialized colonial armies (historical observaion)...
An "occupying army" on the continent, was something which London had always wanted to avoid, by playing out "sytems" and their taxpayers against each other, and now (1947) their "best fwiend's" new doctrine (Truman Doctrine) left London no other choice but to "fight commies" all over their waning "Empire", as a useful tool for the American Century...
It was no longer London creating the "default rivals/enemies", for the potential of "own gain", but Washington DC.
§§§§Footnote
The term geographical advantage will be defined thus: The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs.
Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent.
Of course, London already knew this.
That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem:
Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900).
And so "poor little Belgium" was born.
Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"...
France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war.
The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about turn mind-control trick :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first, and the truth had to be bent to fit the policy.
Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals.
It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up.
Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights".
It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
1
-
1
-
MACHIAVELLIAN PRINCIPLE OF FAIRNESS
One sure-fire way to avoid conflict, is one of the oldest wisdoms/strategies of all: to do onto others, as one wishes to be done onto (not ONLY a moral standpoint, but ALSO a strategy of power to avoid escalation). Of course, per Machiavelli, it is not only a wisdom, but also a strategy of power. Often quoted by imperialists/militarists with agendas as being "Machiavellian" is that "It is better to be feared than loved" which is however a distorted version of the Machiavellian strategy. The same way they lie and distort everything, in order to bend the truth to fit their own world views. Unfortunately, even Machiavelli's writing have become distorted into meaning "It's cool to be an a-hole and brag about it." What Machiavelli actually advised in Chapter XVII was that it is best to be both loved and feared (compromise and deterrence, by being fair). Only when that ideal of "to be loved" is not possible, then to make others "fear" is the way forward. As always, the manipulators, the deceivers, the liars (by omitting half the strategy) will always pretend to expose "truths," whereas what they are doing is actually distorting it. To bear false witness (KNOWingly lie) is a cardinal sin, which results in EFFECTS.
Per Machiavelli: Strategy of "fairness". Do you wish to be encircled, and be encroached upon, and be controlled from outside? Then don't do it to others. Because "fair" is (per Machiavelli) ALSO a strategy of power, and such principles as "putting yourself in the shoes" or "walking a mile in their shoes" are ways to determine a fair principle. The unprincipled have no principles, therefore avoid wasting time on them. Get away from them and let them march into their trenches.
The entire above patterns of rhyming history means wrongdoers will simply always cherry pick their logic, usually by determining the own timeline of events, leaving out data which does not suit the own storyline.
That is why the world needs a global, multi-tiered, legally-based balance of power.
GEOPOSITIONAL ADVANTAGE
Explaining the concept of "an advantage" is simple. The "mommy's basement hero" or the similar "keyboard warrior" is the archetype of an individual arguing from a geopositional advantage. The own standpoint can be richly, proudly, carnivorously (greed) and hectoringly, all loosely quoting Thomas Jefferson, defended from a unique position of being unaffected by the potential EFFECTS of the own standpoint being so vociferously voiced and proclaimed. In other words, as many proverbial expressions state, the advocate will never face or expects never to face, any consequences of the own vociferously claimed "truth". This can of course be quite amusing, if the debater is merely some teen childishly arguing from the safety of his mommy's basement, using every false premise, every cognitive bias, and every fallacy in reasoning imaginable, whilst trumpeting the own "rights", all the while faraway from the events loudly cheered for...
If these are our leaders, then the situation is different. In fact, the repeatedly proclaimed "truths" only means arguing others into a standoff or conflict. These "others" are usually not their own kin, or friends. The intention of the latter is to provoke a reaction to an own unjustified standpoint, then quickly run off into the own safety zone and from there (eating popcorn) "watch others fight". These leaders actually have the clout to implement the actions they proclaim as "correct", unlike the powerless "mommy's basement hero". Both however, stand nothing to lose. Or, so they think. Supporting such "heroes" is the worst strategy in a democracy, since one actually ends up with the worst type of leadership one can imagine: The coward. The manipulator. The weak mind.
A simple question exposes them: Why aren't you there, in the "trenches," defending your OWN standpoint? The place where you can actually stand to lose something?
Then listen/read very carefully.
Of course, this argument cannot be simply thrown back at the originator of the universal principled standpoint, as opposed to the unprincipled standpoint of the "basement hero" as introduced into memes and folklore and as explained above. A principled standpoint means NOT to get into such positions as "the standoff" in the first place. The standoffs as advocated BY these "basement heroes", are the escalation patterns which are recurrent throughout history. Unfortunately our species is evolutionary wired not only to become susceptible to manipulation, deception, lies and half-truths, but also to become the creators of manipulation, deception, lies and half-truths, and evolutionary wired to pass all of this on as "stories" without thinking too much about what they pass on as a "story." Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quite or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
1
-
1
-
@Steven Dhanjal I didn't say you were Christian, and neither am I.
I guess you grew out of it as soon as you reached the age of reason....
In case you like stories about "normal" or "fluffy feelings", how about this one:
“As a LGBTQ, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true. I don't believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and that sex and marriage is meant for everybody who wants to have a little fun. Where this bill of same sex marriage crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
[note here, I simply took Chow's statement, and changed a few words]
Note also that personal convictions differ, and every American has the unalienable right to pursue "life, liberty, and happiness".
It is not for you or me, or anybody else, to decide what "normal" means.
I guess there are people who value the Constitution and Declaration of Independence more than others, and would never use their own "fluffy feelings" to try and limit the unalienable right Christians have to "life, liberty, and happiness".
1
-
1
-
@aleksandarnedeljkovic8104 No, both lost.
Both the "encircler" British Empire, and the rising economic threat they tried to encircle and encroach upon (also by proxy), lost.
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
WW1 and WW2 was one conflict, with a 20-year pause in the middle. The "winners" were the USA and Russia/SU/USSR.
Today, it is Russia which is the target of encroachment. The strategic aim just shifted further east.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside powers can "surf in and skim off the profits". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS
European peoples are to daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that that end up thinking everything they do is justified...
Has your nation, or your leader been "chosen as a favorite son"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have aside, or settle them fast, don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme, and actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU, for the gain of the outside Western Powers...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Africa and the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in Africa and the ME) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, that took a while.
Seeing that the USA signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948... yup, 1948.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" without a treaty or signature on the dotted line.
What could possibly go wrong?
I assume machiavelli was rolling in his grave...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries.
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Alongside other measures, the Balfour Declaration/Sykes-Picot was a "divide and rule"-strategy, by outside powers, intent on gaining power by dividing the Semitic peoples of the Levant. This simple statement or theory, can be validated by simply investigating the events 100 years ago, and cutting out the distortions created by "dissension" (note: "sowing dissension" in systems, is a means used in the "divide an rule"-technique).
There is a saying stating that if one cannot explain something in a few minutes, that it is probably false.
The divide and rule strategy of and over the peoples of these ex-Ottoman provinces, can be explained in a few seconds: With declarations/top-down decisions such as Balfour and Sykes-Picot, the Semitic peoples of the Levant were "divided" with "rulings".
After the European empires weakened, the USA took over, implementing the exact same strategy of power.
The source of the eternal misery is not religion, it is WESTERN IMPERIALISM, and it has been ever since OIL was discovered in the Middle East/West Asia a hundred years ago. The oppressed rallying behind "religion" is the EFFECT, not the CAUSE. The entire reasoning behind the Western colonial powers creating random artificial states by drawing lines in the sand under the rule of their imposed puppets, was for the USA/collective West to CONTROL the entire region and its resources and strategic value. The entire reasoning behind the Western colonial powers nodding off the creation of "Israel" as settler colonial project was to have an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" (staging area in geopolitics) of WHITE EUROPEANS in the Levant, for their eternal wars, constant regime change operations, and the spying and sabotage operations, FOR THEIR OWN "INTERESTS".
In a recent talk at the International Conference for Peace in Vienna (June 2023) Professor Jeffrey Sachs spoke with Dr. Heinz Gärtner, regarding recent political developments in Europe and the world. In this talk, Prof. Sachs briefly mentions the current strategy behind Washington DC's policy for Europe, which is the age-old "divide and rule/conquer"-technique. Unfortunately, he did not delve deeper into his observations.
In US domestic politics: "We have to defeat this divide-and-rule strategy, which goes back thousands of years. That’s how the few CONTROL the many." Four time US presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, Sun Magazine interview, 2019
Both the Ukraine and Israel are "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer's theory) for the American Century.
In power dynamics, the tail does not "wag the dog". Both these two serve a function.
Ukraine = to weaken Russia
Israel = permanently destabilize the MENA region (Middle East/North Africa).
NATO, the EU member states, Japan, South Korea, and a few others are just US poodles, too afraid to act truly independently, and to put a stop to these power dynamics.
Oh, wait...lemme guess...you are not personally responsible for any of that, even though in the same breathe you'd gladly claim every single "local" (finger pointing) is entirely responsible for everything that happens somewhere else...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It "started" quite innocently, way before WW2.
With a London policy.
I'm sure the British population and the inhabitants of Empire would have been happy if their toffs hadn't made Germany the enemy as a default setting.
The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting...
[britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power]
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.
It came first before all other considerations.
It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding
1) alliances
2) treaties (or no treaties)
3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord)
4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle)
5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint)
6) when to engage in arms races
7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences
Go over your history, and see its handwriting all around...
Enjoy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The price for a "flattened Germany" would be paid after WW2.
Of course, Germany as a power, benefited the British Empire.
Empire's "fwiends"?
Of course, they had their own agendas.
Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
[Google: The American_Century]
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
[britannica(dot)com/topic/balance-of-power]
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
[Google: Operation_Unthinkable 1944]
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
Stalin quickly and instinctively figured out that Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
[Google: Percentages_agreement Churchill and Stalin]
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. Here's Greece. I'll take the rest, including your friends Poland 100%. What are you going to do about it?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timspellman47 You mean your historical "feces" leaders which turned the entire ME into a sh*thole?
You mean your "feces" who planned Operation Ajax, to remove another country's legal head of state?
Like Mossadegh of Iran
"An author, administrator, lawyer and prominent parliamentarian, his administration introduced a range of social and political measures such as social security, land reforms and higher taxes including the introduction of taxation of the rent on land. His government's most significant policy, however, was the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, which had been built by the British on Persian lands since 1913 through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC/AIOC) (later British Petroleum and BP).[6]
Many Iranians regard Mosaddegh as the leading champion of secular democracy and resistance to foreign domination in Iran's modern history...." [wiki]
Yup.
He just had to go.
Imagine if the shoe is ever on the other foot, and this was done by Muslims in the USA or GB.
Oh, those snowflakes...we will never hear the end of it...
1
-
1
-
1
-
POWER. DOESN'T. CARE.
Maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are trapped in a "divide and rule world", and it has been all about PROFITS and CONTROL over the people.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
dinorino2 The UN reflects the consensus of the entire planet's population. You can't cherry pick what you like and what you don't like. You obviously loved the UN while it was for the creation of a Jewish state, but when it points at atrocities, then you suddenly don't like it anymore...
Furthermore, will YOU also denounce all terrorism?
Are you going to campaign for Israel to change every street name, airport, or town square named after terrorists?
(Google: Irgun, Lehi, Palmach, Haganah, Stern Gang, the Special Night Squad and Orde Wingate, etc.)
1
-
1
-
LOL, "hero worshipping" is hardly the basis for an unbiased historical analyses.
In 1940, Hitler (heading a continental power) was hardly in a position to defeat GB, Churchill or no Churchill.
Germany had no navy to speak of, and the LW a short-range tactical air force. Hardly tools which could make a dent in the defenses of a global empire, well-prepared for strategic defense by previous leaders like Chamberlain.
Each and every "war winning weapon" used during WW2, was already ordered or at least conceptually prepared before WW2 started.
After the Fall of France, it was principally Stalin's unwillingness to "make deal" to carve up the British Empire, which saved GB, the Empire, and the...ahem..."free world" (minus the millions of unfree vegetating in the colonies).
With millions of commies threatening his back, Hitler simply could not risk withdrawing his massive armies to strike elsewhere....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
OK, the big picture then.
Unfortunately, although declared wisely, WW2 was implemented unwisely...
Churchill or the other lords were still "fighting the last war", as that saying goes.
In their effort to hang on to their Empire, they made the wrong "friends"...
One their one side, there was the USA. But Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
And the other "friends"?
On the other side of Europe, there was the other "friend": Stalin.
Stalin however, figured out that the Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. What are you going to do about it?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
May all those future prospective "best little fwiends of America" take a very long, and very good, and very deep look.
Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Armenia, Georgia, Baltic States...and, and, and...
This could be YOUR leaders in a few years time, if you don't deliver upon the prospect of "extending Russia" (US strategy paper talk about using millions of human lives as tools for the USA's own expansive aims) or "extending China" for American interests.
Millions dead, but Washington DC is salivating about your resources, and what's "in it for me" with a POTUS more interested in ratings. Donald "this is going to be great television" Trump as supreme slimeball in chief, with his low-life "Bread and Circuses" plebs at his feet...
My apologies to America's sane half, and we will know you from how you speak, but the rest of the planet must rid themselves of the outside influence of these scumba(g)s at the top of the USA or forever lose.
Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Armenia, Georgia, Baltic States, Philippines...and, and, and...
Take a good long hard look at "poor little Ukraine".
1
-
1
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
THE BARBARY WARS; AND LUISIANA
The Barbery Wars were of course not about "ending slavery."
The Barbary States employed an economy partly based on plunder and slavery, and it was attacked by a new state (USA) which partly based its economy on plunder and slavery. Sweden was still an imperialist power back then, and "player." Why the US economy was based on plunder, and land-theft? See the consecutively running Indian Wars, accompanied by land theft and attrocities. US slave trade and slavery was only decided 50 years later, during the Civil War. Search for the "appeal to emotion. There were no "good guys" vs. "bad guys" at all, only the stronger, better organized, and technologically more advanced ingroup ("us") vs. the weaker outgroup ("them"). How do the Barbary Wars fit into the global picture, which was the Napoleonic Wars, just kicking off in earnest? (1803) Because at this early point in time, the USA needed a few "friends" in North America, and paying tribute to deflect the forces of the Barbery States (affiliated with the Ottoman Empire) away from the own trade interests, meant that this money and these resources could then be employed by pirates to attack others: and both Spain and France were needed as friendly powers (Luisiana Purchase). One could hardly expect a solid foundation of a better political understanding, whilst US resources were employed to attack those one wished to align with. A "gift" was needed. A war to ...cough, cough..."end slavery"... Such land purchases were of course not to be understood the same way we as commoners "buy" houses. These were simply the exchange of "spheres of influence" under which the understanding was that the "seller" would no longer meddle in the affairs of the "buyer," and that the "buyer" could do with the territory as seen fit. A similar deal was later also struck with Spain (1819/Adams-Onis Treaty), already too weak to really influence matters globally anymore, after the Napoleonic Wars in Europe collectively and conveniently "extended" all the major European powers. US money was simply re-routed from "paying pirates" to "buying a sphere of influence," in broad terms.
Outside powers paid the Barbary states tribute, which meant safety for the own, whilst directing the pirates at whomever was not paying tribute.
That meant richer states with means to pay could direct the attacks away from themselves, at others. In other words, the Berbers were the proxies of whoever paid them.
How the Barbary Wars fit into the bigger overall global geopolitical "picture," see below...
1
-
Jefferson, Adams, color revolutions, and setting Europe alight from one end to the other...
Most Americans consider their founding fathers as "Americans".
They were in fact British. I'm not familiar with each any every bio, but I assume most of these elites were born in the British Empire, enjoyed a solid "Empire" education, and therefore "thought" British. Everbody "speaking English." They were therefore not "American," but "turncoats." The concept of Arminius as the "turncoat" who turned against those who had trained and educated him (Rome), springs to mind...
Once you can understand this concept of how perceptions are often involuntarily skewed, one can then go next level: these British lords had ambitions for the colonies they were in. These colonies were entrapped in multiple manners, both by geographical and technological restraints, as well as by neighbors. First and foremost by the British Empire of course, but also European and Native American neighbors. If any ideals of expansion were to be achieved, then a series of strategies would have to be implemented.
The fledgling USA (post-1776) was in danger of becoming surrounded and encroached upon, by European neighbors, who held it in their hands to forge alliances with agrieved Native American tribes, and the British Empire alike, still licking its wounds from its loss...
Color revolutions, the Barbary Wars, the Luisiana land "purchase," and other events, are all major parts of the USA's expansive drive in North America.
THE COLOR REVOLUTION 1.0
The USA's role in trying to break apart the failing Holy Roman Empire, in lieu of a "color revolution." The gist of it: A revolution bringing France and Holland closer together, and Holland still controlled Antwerp, the "pistol pointing at the heart of England." Strategist in the USA knew of the importance of this "red line" for London, even if not provably, at least instinctively as explained in the first paragraph: they were still "British" in their world view. Adams already knew that London would set Europe alight from end to end, if there was even the slightest danger of England becoming invaded by an alliance of continental powers. The small "chess piece" the still weak USA would contribute, was to ease a Franco-Dutch alignment of interests. How do we know Adams knew this? Because he wrote it down on a "scrap of paper" (letter). Should there ever be a (paraphrased)"constitution more popular than the own by London", then the despised "rich, proud, hectoring, swearing, squibbing" lords in London, his brethen, would set Europe alight (Napoleonic Wars).
In the shadow of this war, ...cough, cough... "extending" all its North American neighbors, the USA could grow.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Today, Washington DC/USA intends to keep its role as "alpha" of the world (just like London/GB did "around 1900"), gained from European empires after WW2.
There is even an "insider joke" about NATO, which is that it intends to "keep Germany down, and Russia out".
Effect: Washington DC/USA stays the master of European affairs.
NATO is now just another tool in the toolbox of "divide and conquer", going back all the way to the 18th century, when the USA was first established.
European powers failed to morph NATO into a more suitable system following the end of the Cold War "around the year 2000".
A system including Russia and all post-Warsaw Pact nations equally, in a comprehensive security agreement.
Note always: What did not happen.
Of course a comprehensive security agreement without ...ahem...."parallel tweaties", and a "morphed NATO" into a strong arm of international law = power to actually follow up with punch if "the law" is broken.
A new system under which laws, codified by the international community, actually formed a basis of cooperation, not "muh interests you know..."
US leaders realized that the key to their own superiority lay in dividing Europeans any which way they could (note, "Europe" is a geographical term, and includes Russia).
Sowing dissent.
The "freedom and democracy"-argument, backed up by coffers filled to the brim with "slush fund" money...
Sow dissent.
Irrelevant of whether the actors come with good intentions, or are even aware of what they are ultimately doing: Divide and Rule/Conquer, for a different system.
There is a long history...
"In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution had been defeated and its leaders, who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile by the Stadtholder, William V, Prince of Orange, in league with the old oligarchs and with the intervention of Britain and Prussia. Adams and Jefferson agonized for the Dutch Patriots, but felt that they had been betrayed by their own excesses as well as by their Bourbon ally. The fact that France, pledged to the Patriots, had not lifted a finger in their support offered a melancholy lesson for the United States..."
(from ugapress manifoldapp)
Who doth even recognize the "freedom and democracy"-argument here?
Irrelevant of intentions, it fits the definition of "sowing dissent" in an existing "system".
Irrelevant of whether the reader has any personal preferences: the actions fit words, and words have definitions, which are a strategy. Divide others, to avoid unity.
Of course, at this early stage the USA had no way to implement "rule" in any form.
A divided Europe suited Washington DC just fine, because should Europe ever unite, it could pose an existential threat to the new USA...
The more division in Europe, the better.
Support whatever divides.
Oppose whatever unites.
For the own side: the more unity in North America, the better.
The "rule"-part over Europe would have to wait...
And in North America, other...ahem..."systems" would have to go too (American Civil War, all about "poor slaves" we are told...)
So much for the New World.
In the leadup to WW1, London thought they were clever, and that they could gain by dividing everybody else in Europe. "Divide and rule/conquer": note that "rule" has different meanings, and one meaning of the word is simply to "dictate terms" to others, based on an advantage in power.
To make it clear, London never intended "direct rule" over any continental country or adversary, because they were too weak for that, but rather to divide continental powers and thereby gain the advantage of dictating terms in case of negotiations, crisis, or wars.
What "the lords" didn't seem to notice, was that while they were "ruling" over the continent, based on a geographical advantage, somebody else was playing the same game with them.
It was Washington DC, playing "divide and conquer/rule" with Europe, and to the leaders here, GB was simply a part of "Europe" (geographical entity).
There are two ways to conquer people: one is by war, the other by debt, which is exactly what Washington DC did.
After a few hundred years, the game had simply been flipped 180 degrees.
Around 1900 there were "two systems" in Europe: one "librul" (lol), one "conservative"...
The "dividers and rulers" could play to their heart's content...
And around 2000 "history rhymed", and nobody noticed...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ryvaken According to international data of "intentional homicide (all causes) per 100 000" the USA is 4-5 times more dangerous than countries in Western Europe.
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings
The idea that many guns keep the streets safe, is false.
Unless you have other data.
Could you post a link to your source? Id like to check into that.
"Gun free zones" actually dont gave the intention to stop mass-shootings.
That is the "straw man argument" of the NRA.
The intention behind gun free zones is to aid authorities in zeroing in on the killer, without being confused by the "good guys with guns" all drawing their weapons.
That is in actually how things were done in the Wild West frontier towns. Sheriffs demanded that arrivals hand in guns, and if this was refused, ill intent was clear, and the Sheriff and his deputies could take him/them out.
Evidence for the effectiveness is actually the Gilmore garlic festival shooting, during which the police/guards could zero in on the gunman in seconds, and kill him. If there had been unknown "good guys with guns" all drawing their weapons, there would have been confusion.
Imagine the situation if you were there.
Youre a good guy with a gun, another guy is drawing his gun to take out the shooter....is this guy another "good guy", or a 2nd shooter?
You won't know.
The other "good guys" wouldnt know if you are a good guy or 2nd shooter either.
The cops won't know = confusion and valuable seconds are lost.
1
-
@Ryvaken Just to add to the above.
If you wish to advocate a system of deputies, then a certificate of proficiency, coupled with identifying oneself has legit bearer of arms, could be the way forward.
Simply identify oneself upon entry, and then be integrated into the defense system.
An app for smartphone, finger print activated in case of a mass shooting could be another option. Such an app, coupled with a centralized "good guy" database, and GPS data could give valuable information to law enforcement, in the unlikely event of a mass shooting. Any "good guy" could then give a clear description of the shooter, identify himself, and safe valuable seconds.
1
-
1
-
Maybe it has something to do with the zealous arrogance of the Jews themselves, who marched in as white colonists (yup, DNA proves it), expecting the "brown locals" to bow down.
After years of trying to colonize Palestine according to the stone age cult they were followers of, the resorted to murder, terrorism, ethnic cleansing...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence
Today, Israeli leaders are in denial that they ever did anything wrong...
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/230783
...even if many of their leaders were terrorists, for example Begin...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(militant_group)
What kind of "uncivilized people" would name town squares, airports and streets after terrorists?
Yes, imagine the shitstorm if Germans voted a Holocaust denier into office...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's all about BRICS.
It's all about creating useful tools of containment for the American Century (like "Greater Israel" would be in the future, see "map" of Eurasia).
The Atlanticists have always used divide-and-rule, to AVOID.
The endsieg is to break up BRICS, to AVOID any and all competition to their rule and domination of the globe. To destroy any signs of an emergent balance of power.
Just like WW1/WW2 was about breaking up the ties between the vestiges of the Holy Roman Empire (First-, Second-, Third Reich) to break up the Central European power base, mainly steering and using tools.
The storyline always rhymes...
The Black Legend and the accompanying "White Legend" also rhymes.
The aim is to distort the big picture by compartmentalizing brains, based on appeals to emotions, and fallacies in reasoning. On the plus side this means conspiracy theorists are (AGAIN) out in force, "blaming the J€w$" for everything. Finger pointers at work...
Critical question: How do we know this? Because it IS already happening, on an ever increasing scale.
And the true empires can disappear behind their veils of deceit and manipulation, because maybe 5% "see" the big picture...
P.S.: Yes, Iran is now in danger of becoming the "buck catcher" to extend the USA/Israel, to weaken all. China and Russia however did not foster this (defensive realism stand). It was the Atlanticists, right from the start, after the withdrawal of the Ottoman Empire (WW1) from the ME, and GB and France as "masters" of all of West Asia (incl. Persia/Iran) during the 1950s and 1960s.
[This emergent reality will now allow opportunistic apologists, operating from their MIMAC-systems, distorting the timelime, with endless "finger-pointing"-material, about how "evil" the other side is...]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.” — Henry Kissinger (attr.)
The beauty of "history", is that the "control freaks" of history tell you exactly what they aim to do. Whether Kissinger actually said this or not, is not important. What is important is that it is one of those age-old truisms known to the average history fan as the "siege" of towns and fortresses, as the "naval blockade" (military strategy) as technology improved, or in modern times the "political/economic sanctions", all with a host of variations as our world became more and more complex.
When these few have the MONEY, they CONTROL the resources, and that includes human beings all over the globe as potential PROXIES as "human resources".
Summary generated by ChatGPT from the video description of the UCLA video:
"The 1994 discussion between Henry Kissinger and Jack Matlock revolved around the contentious issue of NATO expansion and its implications for U.S.-Russia relations and Eastern Europe's stability. The debate was set against the backdrop of Russian opposition, articulated by President Boris Yeltsin, who warned that expanding NATO could lead to a "cold peace" and further isolate Russia. Kissinger supported NATO expansion as a necessary step to ensure the security and sovereignty of Central European countries like Poland and Hungary. He argued that delaying expansion could create a geopolitical vacuum, leaving these nations vulnerable to influence from both Germany and Russia. Kissinger viewed NATO as a stabilizing force and an "insurance policy" against future uncertainties, emphasizing that such moves need not antagonize Russia if managed through diplomatic and military assurances. Matlock, however, cautioned against hasty expansion, noting that Russia's current weakness did not pose an immediate military threat. He believed that NATO expansion might inflame nationalist sentiments within Russia, complicating its internal politics and its path toward democracy. Instead, he argued for prioritizing economic integration of Eastern European nations into the European Union and maintaining diplomacy to address Russian concerns. The conversation highlighted differing perspectives on balancing security, diplomacy, and the risks of escalating tensions in post-Cold War Europe."
Arguing "two sides of the same fence", which was systemic expansion into Eastern Europe, using Russia's weakness after the fall of the USSR.
The use of millions of people as "battering rams" to cause friction in Eastern Europe with NATO expansion in order to overpower a weakened Russia, was the set path in order to assure US "primacy" per strategy (Wolfowitz Doctrine, 1991). The smokescreen as cover was provided by the parallel running promises of comprehensive security agreements, OSCE, Partnership for Peace, et al...
The goal? Carve Russia up, and use the pieces left over to encircle on China, the next in line after Germany (Treaty of Versailles/WW2), and siphon off the riches for own gain.
Divide-and-rule/destroy/control simply moved further east.
Re. the strategies our leaders follow.
They have not changed much over time.
Age-old strategies to advance own interests, which do not exclude cheating their "friends" and Christian "brothers" in the Caucasus.
Taiwan, Georgia, and others, take note.
"Friendship" does not exist on the ladder to success, or to stay on top of the pyramid kicking down.
A tale as old as the Bible.
Esau and Jacob is of course a cautionary tale to beware of brothers who come to you with a GIFT which has morphed over time and now means "winning means everything". Note that in this biblical "tale" about eternal deceit and "cheating own brothers out of their inheritance", that the deceiver is the hero of the story.
Those who end up with the RICHES under your feet, are the heroes. The deceiver's name and slimy ways continue.
Esau the inheritor and his father's favourite, as a name has sorta died out...
Just remember, wherever you live, that you just a "dog" in a "manger" (Churchill), and that the RESOURCES intended to be passed onto you as natural inheritance, belong to the OUTSIDERS, in the OUTSIDERS heads, and according to the strategies of these OUTSIDERS. The "smooth talking good guy", the spiffy clean deceiver, scamming his own brother, whilst arguing like a woman creating division within unity and creating the BLACK LEGEND of his brother (the "bad guy"), is the "hero" of history. Very telling indeed.
"If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past." - Baruch Spinoza
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joverstreet24 Your comment about Hitler is known as a non sequitur.
It does not logically follow onto the debate.
What is there in my comments which lead you to conclude that the debate is about cancelling the 2nd Amendment?
The correct answer? Nothing.
In fact, my point is to leave the 2nd Amendment exactly the way it is, but simply focus on the first clause (well organized militia) rather the the second clause (right to bear arms) in order to deal with the potential "evil government".
Scroll up.
Your first comment was that you saw a necessity for the same arms as the government, in order to stand up to them in case they turn evil. To tell you the truth, they'd take one look at a few guys in camos and AR-15s and bring on the drones, helicopter gunships, SWAT teams, SEALs, you name it, they'll roll it in....
In order to stop your uprising from spreading, they'll fabricate lies against you, which your AR-15 cannot counter. In case you are shown all over TV as a "baby killer" (lies), what are you going to do about it? Who will voluntarily join you?
Think outside the bubble.
In order to stand up to an "evil government", you'll need faaaaaaar more than a kevlar jacket and an AR-15.
That's my only point.
1
-
@joverstreet24 Correct.
The most effective "weapons" against the propaganda of the "evil government", is a counter offensive with hackers, and a dark web.
Do you have these?
The most effective weapon against Apaches are Stingers. or some other AA system.
Do you have these?
The most effective weapon against drones and UAVs are hackers, which can hack the system and cause malfunctions.
Do you have these?
Dreaming of being a "Rambo" isn't enough. Only teamwork and networking with others on multiple levels will give you the edge.
The "evil government" will not try to carpet bomb you like in 1965 or 1970.
They'll have smart weapons, killer robots, spy drones, and if you don't adapt, you'll die.
All the while the fellow Americans you are counting on to come and help you out, will sit on their couches, munching Tacos, saying "good riddance. 'nother terrorist gone" as you get splattered against a hillside...
The first step towards a future resistance, is a realistic appraisal of what the future battlefield will be like.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@amigahome Uhm, no.
I'm not confusing anything :-)
I suggested Google.
So, yes.
"Communism" and it's "little brothers" like Stalinism, or Maoism, can only be enforced from the top down by terror. Only a fool would wish for that.
Socialism is a theory.
Did you actually google it?
There is no such thing as a "purely socialist state", because it is a THEORY. In reality, socialism morphs by adapting to various political and economic models, to form mostly successful symbiosis.
Europe for example.
Not "perfect", because nothing is perfect. But certainly a model worth exploring.
"Socialism" adapts to whichever region or culture it expands to, as each nation finds the best solution to its internal problems. "Socialism" in Singapore is not the same as "Socialism" in Israel, etc.
The USA has already implemented dozens of socialist ideas, ever since Roosevelt, just not very effectively.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
1
-
1
-
Reality with re. to the "good whites" who "abolished slavery".
Slavery was abolished, because there was more to be gained by abolishing it, than by perpetuating it.
In a changing world where more and more people were becoming literate (mid 19th century), and newspapers and knowledge spread widely, it was simply a good "finger pointing"-tool.
The states which had abolished it, and paid the slave owners handsomely as an incentive, could now "finger point" at "bad states/people" in a giant propaganda match.
With a few exceptions, nobody "abolished slavery" because they woke up one morning feeling sorry for "poor slaves" lanquishing in misery.
In GB, the families who gained millions over millions of Pounds in return for "abolishing slavery" in a massive "trickle up"-scheme, at the expense of taxpayers, were paid in advance. The last "installment" of this gaint "wealth distribution"-scheme from the bottom up (the armies of taxpayers) to the top (ruling class), was only paid back in 2015.
LOL...BAMBOOZLED...
Sorry "taxpayer class".
You lose.
Again, and again, and again, and again...
The families who received their "reinbursement" for "lost property" (human beings) upfront 200 years ago, still block any and all freedom of information acts, to keep hidden who they are.
YOU are not soposed to find out "WHO GAINED BIGTIME" 200 hundred years ago, but YOU must bleat out the "whites are good people, cos we ended slavery"-narrative...
It was done for gain for the own "empire", at the expense of some other "empire".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By starting to pull the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers, with a billion small hands...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Alongside other measures, the Treaty of Versailles was a "divide and rule"-strategy, by outside powers, intent on gaining power by dividing Europeans. This simple statement or theory, can be validated by simply investigating the events around the turn of the previous century, and cutting out the distortions created by "dissention" (note: "sowing dissention" in systems, is a means used in the "divide an rule"-technique).
There is a saying stating that if one cannot explain something in a few minutes, that it is probably false:
At Versailles, Europeans were "divided" with a "ruling".
The divide and rule strategy of and over Europeans, can be explained in three seconds...
Of course, no superficially observed series of events can be concluded to be "a non-falsifiable theory" (Carl Popper), if there is not a substantial amount of evidence to corroborate it, and if the reader wishes, the comments section under the Histo4y Room channel's "Wilhelm II" documentary, has more than 100 essays going back more than 4 years, to provide more than ample evidence for the theory of how Europeans 1) were once "divide and ruled" over (around 1900), and 2) are still being divided and ruled over (around 2000), by outside powers.
"The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: wrong.
It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid the divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use the technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ishaangovardhan7430 Yes.
Correct.
Harris is an imperialist.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. The USA could afford to wait. Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zerohour5747 AVOID THE EQUILLIBRIUM
That is the sole aim of the "affairs of the city" which is per definition the system of politics.
-----------
Divide and conquer works because not everyone involved knows that they are taking on a role in a power game. That's how the strategy works. Very few people really need to understand it. In English, the principle is called "Useful Innocent/Useful Idiot." From a position of power, you can animate people (usually through money, or ideology) who play a role, but they know not what they do.
The peoples in your "neck o' the woods," have been ruled by division since the beginning.
Because it's easier to divide people based on personal differences than to unite them based on their similarities. Strategically ambivalent elites use this to their own advantage. Now the intention is simply to avoid the unity in your society, in order to "rule" over the dissenters, which is the classic "divide and conquer" principle. This strategy is kept under wraps, due to a systemic desire to be "good", and on the "right side of history", and therefore overemphasizing the actions of philanthropists, political doves, peace activists, religious leaders, etc.
At the same time the activities of political hawks sowing divisions are downplayed, relativized, apologized for, mostly by politicians and strategists as the "story tellers" of history. But also by commoners, who simply parrot the stories without thinking them through, and who are NOT privy to the overall strategy (divide-and-rule in all its intricacies and nuances).
The main interest of these people for which we have been fighting wars for centuries has been the relationships between organized sysyems of finance and power, and systems of resources and manpower. Because united they are the only power that could threaten this group. They must make sure that the unity of others does not happen. ... For these elites ... the greatest fear is an overall creation of a unity of technology, capital and natural resources, and labor, as the only combination that has frightened the elites for centuries. So how does this play out? Well, they have already put their cards on the tilted table. They draw their invisible lines onto society.
Today all our so-called "leaders" are too weak to create systemic unity, to avoid their "friends" simply drawing lines all over the place, which they cower down to and must obey.
Like a ratchet, one click at a time, the "marching empire." Endless wars, constant disagreements, using imperialism to stay on top. Using "levers" of lies and distrust, via power players. Creating favorites: favoring the proxies who bow down and sacrifice themselves for the mastah. Pointing fingers, everywhere else, using the POWER of the mainstream media.
Divide-and-rule/conquer.
The oldest trick in the book...
Who has the POWER? Who has always had the GEOPOSITIONAL advantage of power to rule? The GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all other "buck catchers" (tools and other instruments of POWER in the Roman era style), but could not be reached themselves at any point in a historical timeline due to a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic- or political advantage?
“Divide-and-rule/conquer” as a standard strategy of power and thus the cause of nearly all conflicts in the world connects the dots on the timeline of history. Being far from the events resulting from their own meddling and political activities and being able to reach all other regions, but could not be reached themselves.
All they want is peace, they say. Who gathers the pieces of the great wealth and systemic gains when everyone else has failed to unite?
Different terms. Different eras. Same games...
The opposition that wants unity and equillibrium in a region is the "bad guy."
We, who seek true peace and harmony, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized.
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D chess." Everything you know is a "variation" of reality. They are playing “5D chess” with the minds of 2D checkers players, within the rains of people who think they are “smart”.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By that time (1897/1898) it was clear that "family ties" could not patch things up in divided Europe, in a changing world.
Of course one could argue that there wasn't any "European unity" to "divide" at the time (around 1900), but that isn't the only purpose of "divide and rule". Divide and rule also seeks preventive action, to avoid unity if such a threat is spotted on the horizon...
Also, there was no "1900 alpha" with a "Truman Doctrine"-style tool to create unity (under which it had the sole "ultimate weapon") by
creating a common rival/enemy either...
Only "a Wilhelm" trying to unite European powers behind a common cause...
Unfortunately in the study of history we only have two options: Simply believe what others tell us, or do own research.
Please download and read "Germany and the Spanish-American War" from JSTOR (free pdf).
The US plans to overpower Spain and take their colonies started in 1897.
So did Berlin's contigency plans for the USA (low-key at first, later adapted as the Spanish-American War progressed).
Yet what remains today as "important history"?
The historian explains (its only 12 pages from a longer book) how uniting Europe behind a common cause ("defending own European interests by uniting and siding with Spain") was Wilhelm's real goal.
The "German planned attack on America" today being widely spread as the assumed sign of "Wilhelm's evil" and "desire to rule the world", is an ancillary detail of course. Yes, a highly emotionally charged one (google "appeal to emotion") and can therefore serve as a sort of "clickbait" in history to distract from the more tedious and boring books explaining what really happened.
The Spanish-American War was the last opportunity to unite Europe behind a common cause.
Too bad the alpha at the time was ruled by a gambler and womanizer (Edward) and otherwise engaged (Second Boer War). Too busy to come up with a "turn of the century (1900)"-version of the Truman Doctrine herself.
According to that history, in 1897/1898 Wilhelm did not want to act alone, but preferred to try and find common concensus "along family lines" first, but failed because European capitals were more about "me first", in a rapidly changing world.
Subsequently Europe made it easy for Washington DC to start playing their "divide and rule". Paris was the first to try and snuggle up to a disinterested Washington DC, followed by London...
And today?
The post-WW2 Truman Doctrine and the "united Europe" it helped to forge (at least in the west after WW2), no longer serves its intended purpose.
Time to "divide and rule" again...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ASIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside systems can "surf in and skim off the profits". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS OR PERSONAL PRIORITIES
European peoples are far to daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive them too, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that they end up thinking everything they do is justified, with "only a few exceptions" in order to seem fair...
Has your nation, or a leader already been "chosen as a favorite son of the West"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have with neighbors aside, or settle them fast, and don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme. Actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples across all borders.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these Western "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU today, for the gain of the outside Western Powers, just like divide and rule sacrificed your grandparents and previous Asian generations during the Era of Imperialism...
------------------------
P.S.: I cannot personally post this message myself too often, since YT autoblocks it as "spam" if I copy and paste it under videos too often. I need YOUR help. In your own interest of safety, please spread this message with regards to the age-old "divide and rule"-strategy of outside (non-Asian) powers. Thank You.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, so true. Don't forget to factor in "ideological indoctrination."
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
1
-
@marklee2412 Stand up to the empire in a non-violent way, inspired by Ghandi and others before.
Everbody can play a role, but it needs individual action, and some self-sacrifice.
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join up...
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The French Fleet at Mers was no threat to the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of US corporate capitalism (Washington D.C.) and communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and had slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
So yes.
The superior geostrategists in Washington D.C. won.
No wonder, that the "smiling emperor" FDR was pleased with Churchill.
1
-
1
-
1
-
If one creates "alternative history" in an effort to "kill more kiddies", it should at least be viable.
Reality? It was not for London (or you for that matter) to decide what to do with the mutually developed nukes in 1945.
Making "best fwiends" with Washington DC was stupid. A "partnership" which Washington DC would exploit to the fullest, and arm-wrestle the British Empire into the ground.
From atomicheritage(dot)org
"In September 1944, a second summit was held in Quebec City to discuss plans for the final assault on Germany and Japan. A few days later, Churchill and his family went to Roosevelt’s estate in Hyde Park, New York. The two leaders pledged in a memorandum, “Full collaboration between the United States and the British Government in developing Tube Alloys [code word for "nukes"] for military and commercial purposes should continue after the defeat of Japan unless and until terminated by joint agreement” (Goldschmidt 217).
Despite this promise, the death of Roosevelt in 1945 marked the end of wartime collaboration. President Truman chose not to abide by this second agreement, and United States nuclear research was formally classified in the 1946 Atomic Energy Act.
The British had contributed to the successful creation of an atomic bomb, and yet after the war were faced with the reality that they had been cut off from its secrets."
[End of quote]
Not just a minor detail, but part of a pattern of measures Washington DC/The American Century would take to overpower London.
That what happens when ones own empire is lead by "idealists", who go off in search of faraway empires in order to avoid having to make compromises with neighbors.
Brits should have made an alliance with Wilhelmine Germany (around 1900), and that would have saved their "empire".
Idealism" was thinking that "speaking English" was enough common ground to save the Empire...
Sorry. Really...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages.
In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roma era instruments of POWER), but cannot be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc...
Sorry to burst your bubble.
I've got some bad news for all you "never gonna fight"-fanboys.
YOU. WILL. GO.
Capturing the hearts and minds of the (mainly) young, rebellious, and easily-influenced, is a long-term goal of what W.T. Stead set out to do as the "Americanization of the World" (book) on all tiers: ideology, food, industrial products, movies, language, etc. Of course, what he didn't mention back then almost a hundred years ago when this global strategy started, was that this was in effect an old Roman-era strategy of power: to morph the conquered, to become "like Rome." Fill the bellies of the global masses ("Bread") and distract them with entertainment ("Circuses"), and then turn them into the tools of the empire.
Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy.
It gave whites ("Europeans") the basis of the power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other.
The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
Divide-and-rule was the advantage they thought they held 100 and 200 years ago, and they think it still is today.
There can be only 1 "winner". The others are the systemic "cannon fodder" for the gain of the few "buck passers".
Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything, nobody ever decided anything, everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and finger-pointers...
Teach your children well...
Of course these hundreds of comments by Americans and Canadians mirror the comments made by hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favourite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the leadup to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power (in stages after 1890), in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) and their "buck-catchers", nodded off by the "buck passers" which hold the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed right through to today.
Whatever...
Guess who "wins"?
The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand).
The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction (MIRVs carrying nukes) as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
James Henderson It would have meant compromising the safety of the British Empire.
Hitler had already received generous conditions concerning the Sudetenland, and then went ahead and slapped Chamberlain in the face in March 1939, by breaking the Munich accord.
First question therefore: Why trust Hitler's signature 6 months after he signed and broke the Munich Accord?
The safety of Empire lay in Poland.
As a British PM in those days, you had an Empire to protect.
Because the Limitrophe States...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitrophe_states
....was the wall that blocked Hitler from gaining access to the Heartland (geostrategy).
Poland was not only a barrier, but also a gateway to the World Island...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
If Hitler broke (again) whatever accord Chamberlain agreed to concerning the Corridor or Danzig, it would mean a common border with the SU. If Hitler then also attacked the SU, he could then carry on eclipsing western interests in the ME, Turkey, Persia, Suez Canal, or whatever he pleased...
If Hitler had beat the SU, he would have had London by the "imperialistic balls", so to speak.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism, by granting access to the own POWER...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power...
------------------------------------------------
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite, or at least avoid total disunity.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Today, just like at all points on the timeline, America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the indivual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-----------------------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Four corners of the globe. Same games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Their fears were probably shaped by the times the lived in, and the world they escaped from (Europe) with its monarchies, religious wars, wars of succession, etc.
IMO, they wanted to end that, and mold a new people following new principles.
If not, it would just have been a continuation of old European ways on a new continent, with division, with death, plunder and wars sweeping to and fro.
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you live in the "global South", do not relax yet, or celebrate any assumed victories of creating more unity. The USA/collective West have one more ace up their sleeve.
Capturing the hearts and minds of the (mainly) young, rebellious, and easily-influenced, is a long-term goal of what W.T. Stead set out to do as the "Americanization of the World" (book) on all tiers: ideology, food, industrial products, movies, language, etc. Of course, what he didn't mention back then almost a hundred years ago when this global strategy started, was that this was in effect an old Roman-era strategy of power: to morph the conquered, to become "like Rome." Fill the bellies of the global masses ("Bread") and distract them with entertainment ("Circuses"), and then turn them into the tools of the empire.
Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy.
It gave whites ("Europeans") the basis of the power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other.
The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
Divide-and-rule was the advantage they thought they held 100 and 200 years ago, and they think it still is today.
There can be only 1 "winner". The others are the systemic "cannon fodder" for the gain of the few "buck passers".
Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything wrong (sic./apologia), nobody ever decided anything bad (sic./apologia), everybody can always simply point the finger (reality in the "superior West"), everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, profiteers, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and finger-pointers...
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power (in stages after 1890), in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) and their "buck-catchers", nodded off by the "buck passers" which hold the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed right through to today.
Whatever...
Guess who "wins"?
The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand).
The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction (MIRVs carrying nukes) as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
1
-
1
-
The British Empire was not only forced to "divide and quit" India as hegemonial power in 1947, but also the continent of Europe in 1945.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still some 15 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had the global influence of the Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@piggypiggypig1746 TYT viewers are very curious.
And well-versed in the art of attempted misdirection, lies, or deceit by authorities...
The department which investigated the incident in February, apparent functioned under the motto : "to serve and to protect..."
More like "to serve (own interests) and protect (buddies)"
"Glynn County Police Department and District Attorney's Office for the Brunswick Judicial Circuit
The Glynn County Police Department has a troubled history that was revisited following Arbery's killing.[32][1] The New York Times noted that in preceding years, the department had "been accused of covering up allegations of misconduct, tampering with a crime scene, interfering in an investigation of a police shooting and retaliating against fellow officers who cooperated with outside investigators." [1] Days after Arbery was fatally shot, the chief of police – who had been brought in to clean up a police force described by the county manager in 2019 as poorly trained and characterized by a "culture of cronyism" – was indicted on charges arising from an alleged cover-up of a sexual relationship that an officer had with an informant.[1] The involvement of the Glynn County Police Department as the primary investigator in a case involving its former officer Gregory McMichael was controversial.[22]
Arbery's death prompted re-examinations of earlier shootings by Glynn County police.[32] In 2010, two police officers fatally shot an unarmed woman, Caroline Small, through her car windshield.[32] Four former prosecutors who worked under Glynn County District Attorney Jackie Johnson said that Johnson shielded the officers from criminal prosecution; a 2015 investigation by WSB-TV revealed that Johnson had agreed to not show the grand jury a draft murder indictment and had "allowed the officers' department to present a factually inaccurate animation they created showing Small's car escaping through a gap and running over the officers." [32] One of the officers involved in the shooting of Small—Corey Sasser—subsequently murdered his ex-wife and her boyfriend before committing suicide in 2018.[32] Due to Johnson having previously worked with Gregory McMichael when he was an investigator in her office, she recused herself from further involvement in the case.[34]"
[Wiki]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interverence at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
§§§footnote
The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Herero Genocide, as told by a British Empire (apologist) historian.
From wiki: "The original inhabitants of what is now Namibia were the San and the Khoekhoe. Herero ... were originally a group of cattle herders who migrated into what is now Namibia during the mid-18th century. The Herero seized vast swaths of the arable upper plateaus which were ideal for cattle grazing. Agricultural duties, which were minimal, were assigned to enslaved Khoisan and Bushmen. Over the rest of the 18th century, the Herero slowly drove the Khoisan into the dry, rugged hills to the south and east."
Guess who started it?
"The newcomers, much taller and more fiercely warlike than the indigenous Khoisan people, were possessed of the fierceness... Regarding the care and protection of their herds, the Herero showed themselves utterly merciless, and far more 'savage' than the Khoisan had ever been..." (wiki)
Of course, the poor inhabitants who were there first, and were brutalized and enslaved by militarist foreign invaders, needed protection.
Therefore, to keep the peace "In 1890 Maharero's son, Samuel, signed a great deal of land over to the Germans in return for helping him to ascend to the Ovaherero throne, and to subsequently be established as paramount chief.[29][31] German involvement in ethnic fighting ended in tenuous peace in 1894.[32]"
The German peacemakers tried and tried and tried their pure-hearted best, but unfortunately, the nasty Herero didn't want peace.
A little later...
"In that year, Theodor Leutwein became governor of the territory, which underwent a period of rapid development, while the German government sent the Schutztruppe (imperial colonial troops) to pacify the region..." (wiki)
Always just wanting peace, and roads and schools, the Germans only had the best intentions for the impoverished poor people.
Let's skip a few embarassing details OPERATION LEGACY-style by dumping it into the ocean, and continue...
"For many years, the Herero population had fallen in the habit of borrowing money from colonist moneylenders at extreme interest rates (see usury). For a long time, much of this debt went uncollected and accumulated, as most Herero had no means to pay... In the absence of hard cash, traders often seized cattle, or whatever objects of value they could get their hands on, as collateral." (wiki)
Well, that's not a nasty practice. That's capitalism, and it was obviously greedy locals who were at fault, not the pure-hearted money lenders (finger pointing vigerously).
Let's burn some embarassing details OPERATION LEGACY-style, and continue...
*"The Herero revolted in early 1904, killing between 123 and 150 German settlers, as well as seven Boers and three women ..."
WELL WELL
Guess who started it again?
How long must peace-loving settlers put up with these warlike savage people, who considered slavery of their weaker neighbors as fair?
They obviously thought they could terrorize and kill everybody else, and nobody could kill them.
A typical way these Herero fought as cherry-picked criteria: "A Herero warrior interviewed by German authorities in 1895 had described his people's traditional way of dealing with suspected cattle rustlers, a treatment which, during the uprising, was regularly extended to German soldiers and civilians, "We came across a few Khoisan whom of course we killed. I myself helped to kill one of them. First we cut off his ears, saying, 'You will never hear Herero cattle ... ' Then we cut off his nose, saying, 'Never again shall you smell ... And finally we cut his throat." (wiki)
Judge, jury, executioner...
They obviously deserved everything they got.
Obviously, the only language such people understoond is to receive MORE THAN THE MEASURE...
Even worse, the brave Germans who were outnumbered 10 to 1 suffered defeats as they fought for peace and stability, and Leutwein/German leader ... "sent desperate messages to the Herero chief Samuel Maherero in hopes of negotiating an end to the war...The Hereros, however, were emboldened by their success and had come to believe that, "the Germans were too cowardly to fight in the open," and rejected Leutwein's offers of peace.[53]" (wiki)
But Germans fought hard, and prevailed: "By late spring of 1904, German troops were pouring into the colony. In August 1904, the main Herero forces were surrounded and crushed at the Battle of Waterberg..." (wiki)
Wow.
Such bravery.
Finaly after years of humiliating defeats while defending themselves and the settlers, and other local tribes, there was finaly peace...
Skip a few more inconvenient details, OPERATION LEGACY-style...
Unfortunately, the Herero's deluded leaders who refused to give up when they could, mislead their own people: leading them into the desert where some died.
Still today, the propaganda claims more Heroro died (100,000) than actually lived in SWA in 1904 (80,000).
Obviously the anti-German propaganda inflated the death toll.
Hummdeee dum...HINT, HINT....burn a few more files OPERATION LEGACY-style
The Herero troublemakers had "sown" for a hundred years, and terrorized their poor neighbors.
They were a militarist warlike people, who stole the land they lived on: they sowed the wind, and in 1904/05 they reaped the whirlwind...
Today the Herero are nice people, but back then, they just had to be taught a lesson they would never forget.
And thus ends the story of the Herero Genocide, as told by a British Empire (apologist) historian...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pull the rug from under the feet of the corporations...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They morphed strong monarchies ("princes") into weak democracies ("mercenaries"), then used entire regions as tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up to Versailles. The USA could afford to wait.
Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very simply answered:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy.
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
Don't be a sheep.
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Those who have power constantly preach the "rules based society", but the rules they preach, are nothing like the "rules" they themselves follow as guidelines...
They themselves follow "rules" like the "48 Rules of Power/Robert Greene", which are not meant to overcome the divide and rule setup of any society, even democracies, but to make use of the divisions between systems, amplify these divisions if useful, or gloss over such divisions if beneficial for the own gain, in order to win personally or for the own favored system.
For those who follow such "rules", hypocrisy or lies are not an "oversight", or "a mistake", or "accidental", but a strategy of power (see footnote).
Hypocrites draw other hypocrites into their own circles of power: by being openly hypocritical, a hypocrite exposes himself/herself, and can therefore be approached by systems of gain. This is greatly aided by media, or the internet, incl. "free speech", since hypocrisy and lying is a "protected right". Creating entire entities of professional hypocrites and professional spinners, framers, and liars thereby establishing a hierarchy of hypocrites/deceivers, especially prevallent in systems of power and gain, like politics (incl., but not limited to "liberal democracies"), and all forms of structures with an intent of gain motivation (incl., but not limited to capitalist gain models). All of these attract a potential "<20% psychos" which are proven to exist in the top echelons of power in all "intent of gain systems".
Such systems also attract natural bullies, as per observable reality.
Hypocrites, narcissistic behaviour, bullying, and Machiavellianism might cause unease in the overwhelming number of good people in every society, but these good people are usually not the ones "gatekeeping" (also a bully tactic) the most influencial political/corporate job openings, which are not voted for by the populations of "Western-style"-democracies, or in corporations which then proceed to buy their own favorable laws (lobbying, influence) and buy corruptable politicians in the "legalized bribes"-systems they had previously lobbied for...
Being openly hypocritical and deceptive is a "rule" considered a virtue, in some circles of power.
Calling these people out in an effort of shaming is pointless, since they have no shame.
Footnotes/key words for further research:
* 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
* Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
* The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
* Dr. Namie's research concerneing the 4 bully types of human being
Since all human systems of gain (incl. politics and capitalism) are made up of human beings, the above research can be scaled up to any tier, right up to the level of states/empires.
Those who justify (almost) everything which happened in the past (a divide and rule world), will justify the present.
Because the "divide and rule"-world never ended...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There seems to be a concerted "big picture" economic warfare taking place, of which this OPEC decision is just one tiny part.
Near the end of WW2, the "winners" set up the guidelines for how the world would work in the West, for the "winners" and their "friends".
In a nutshell, so one can probably find a lot "wrong" with the following paragraphs, the following was implemented.
At Bretton Woods (1944), the USA received a "licence to print".
Limitations to "simply printing" of course, existed. But by and large though, Washington DC could print almost any amount of money (money and currency are of course slightly different terms), to buy and pay for the defence of the world, or the "world policeman"-status.
In reverse, the minor states would prop up the US dollar, with almost every international sale and transaction, incl. and especially the oil trade. By "printing lotsa dollars", the USA could soak up the industrial overproduction from those with "favored nations"-status, like Japan or West Germany after WW2 (why these "enemies" were now suddenly "friends", see the below comments thread).
As long as most of the entire world was constantly forced to buy dollars, the value of the currency was artificially kept stable, which stabilizes the US economy, which stabilizes the West and "friends", which provides a basis for the "strength of the dollar". A giant cyclic dynamical system.
The above system means that "narratives" such as "insert >some or other country< is not doing enough spending for NATO defense", or "poor USA must pay for everybody else" are largely propaganda wars, waged on populations both inside the USA and in Europe.
The "system meant that today the USA ended up hardly producing anything anymore, apart from foodstuffs, military equipment, and anything to do with communications. The latter includes almost complete control over "the narrative" on the news, social media, or other media outlets (controlled by very few "elites", often with "revolving doors" between positions of money and political power).
Anyway.
The USA is already being handsomely "paid" every time Europeans fill up their cars :-)
When one fills up a car, it means a few dollars and cents have been bought, from the own labor (work/wages/or if you are lucky, your "silver spoon in the mouth" inheritance :-) ), to prop up the dollar.
Google this, but almost all western country's currencies are fiat currencies, backed by mostly faith/belief in the own strength.
And that entire "system" continues on all the way right through to the top: the "reserve currency status" of the US dollar.
Because the dollar is historically reasonably stable, lots of countries buy it as "reserve", which then props up the value of the dollar, which then keeps the US economy stable, which then keeps the value of the dollar high, which then keeps most westerners happy, which then keeps them buying lotsa goodies, which results in trade then paid for in (mostly) dollars or fiat currency, which then leads to more printing, which leads to more buying, which then leads to more people wanting "reserve currency", which leads to more happiness, which leads to....lol
This system can soak up a lot of punishment, but it can also reach a "breaking point" if stretched too far.
China's Covid policy: It keeps people indoors.
It keeps people from going to work.
It stops entire production lines in China, and Chinese exports are inhibited.
Which is then a "spanner in the works" of "the system" explained above.
Hidden in the open, behind the headlines in the newspapers.
One of just many attempts to get back at the "system", as the West encroaches on them physically (the "outsider" China, encroached and surrounded).
The cool thing about this ssystem, is that everybody must participate (economy), but only Washington DC decides who the "best fwiends" (politics) are going to be...
Even "enemies" prop up the West.
Somebody wants to take "the system" down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
British and French leaders went to Versailles under the rather childish illusion that the SU and Germany would stay weak forever and ever and ever....
They ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
[Google: britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power]
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
So sad...
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
1
-
1
-
If they confess something, it means they are lying by omitting. There is something they are not confessing.
The group that can divide all others groups, and avoid them from uniting into larger entities, will rule over all the others.
If you live in the "global South", do not relax yet, or celebrate any assumed victories of creating more unity. The USA/collective West have one more ace up their sleeve.
Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy.
It gave whites ("Europeans") the basis of the power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other.
The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything wrong (sic./apologia), nobody ever decided anything bad (sic./apologia), everybody can always simply point the finger (reality in the "superior West"), everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, profiteers, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and finger-pointers...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ryanwalters6184 How can US leadership avoid having to deal with the OWN divided and ruled population when they can no longer be pacified by throwing heaps of luxury into their laps, getting successively disgruntled as the amount of afforded wealth is decreasing yearly, and ever-more divided more and more unevenly within the own system (1% owning 50% of wealth in the USA) while everybody else on the planets is "exhausted" and "extended," all the while pretending to be friends? Note that the current rising anger within the USA is no longer ground on moral inequalities, such as the large uprisings in the 1960s, and 1970s. The current anger on the the streets, is overwhelming carried by a massive inequality within the OWN country, with the mega-rich encroaching on the own small amounts of acquired wealth in ever more outrageous and openly advocated and politically backed corporate steps. These private equity vultures that were once set loose on the entire planet, are now coming "home to roost"...
Obviously, unlike the post-WW2 "good ol' days" there is not enough to pass around anymore, as others rise and start demanding a fair share of the world's resources, on ALL "front lines" (tiers of power).
What are they going to do?
Oh, never mind: They are already doing it. Implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power, both abroad as well as over the own people, same as ever since they existed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LesterBrunt Sure.
Everyone can be corrupted, even capitalists and those working in for -profit models of private health care...
It's a moot point.
Yes, corruption exists, especially where a lot of money or power is involved.
A case then (fact) to remove money and power from decision making processes.
Shapiro is tugging at your emotions because he knows millions of Americans are desperate, and that that desperation can be turned into a powerful political tool..."corruption" of the mind at its finest...
I live in Europe, so I can only sense the predicament of the average working class Americans.
We in Europe are given strict regulations (on lockdown, varying from country/region), but our governments also support us with unemployment, or short-time work benefits.
So, on the one side there are the limitations on being able to earn a living by own means, and that is balanced by governments putting their money where their mouths are, by insuring that nobody has to fear the economic future (rent, income, etc.) or well-being (health care, etc.).
Of course, it's hypocrisy telling people to stay home, and only giving some (the way I understand it those US citizens who paid taxes last year) a limited means to take care of themselves and family, leaving millions to fend for themselves, or forfeit employer-based health insurance, etc.
The problem is your system, which is a breeding ground for "divide and rule/conquer"- tactics of your elites. It's a dream come true for divisive pied pipers, who lure desperate people in a way it simply isn't possible in most European countries.
1
-
1
-
The Hasbara propagandists have lost this comments section...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What most MSM and established historians seem to forget, whilst proudly advocating the "fighting for democracy" virtue signalling, is that it had been the democratic "liberal empires" (USA/GB) which had lain the foundation of Europe`s demise around the year 1900. From the position of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE which afforded the slight edge in power, which was then exploited by seeing to it that others where kept "down" and "out" of the reach of resources which were needed to succeed. These resources were controlled via that slight edge which geography afforded, at that was ture at ALL times. It a systemic conclusion, which unlike all other theories out there, is true at ALL times, never mind how far one goes back into the past.
Those who carry out such "rule," are not going to tell us how they rule by division on ALL tiers, and how they have ruled by division on all tiers for thousands of years. It is about the oldest trick in the book, to rule by division from a position of POWER. They will tell us, their "good fools," that it is all about the good vs. the bad but guess what they are NOT telling us? They never state HOW they manage it.
The top tiers divide and rule, and this functions in one direction only: down, to the base, which is "we the people."
They divide us, but we have no way or means to divide them, the top tiers, in return.
Revealing capitalist gain systems, to put things in perspective a bit: "Mr. Brown, do you mean to tell me you would let (workers) work until they dropped dead?"
Corporate CEO Lewis H Brown: "Yes. We save a lot of money that way."
Source: Charles Roemer, a Johns Manville employee recalling what Brown said in a deposition. Topic: an already known deadly health risk posed by asbestos in the lung aka mesothelioma, and the associated almost 100-year lasting coverup attempts by DuPont, etc.
This is not just some obscure example out of context, or the proverbial anecdotal evidence, but as thousands of similar examples have shown, is systemic.
The disinformation playbook regarding coverups and corporate 101 of denial and business as usual, even against scientific evidence of the harm caused by own policies/products.
The Fake: Conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research.
The Blitz: Harass scientists who speak out with results or views inconvenient for industry.
The Diversion: Manufacture uncertainty about science where little or none exists.
The Screen: Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies.
The Fix: Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy.
These are all typical divide and rule strategies, which are employed on all tiers of systems intent on aggressive gain, and which are therefore typical of all systems of gain, including capitalist and democratic systems. The technique is more than adequately explained in the below comments section, and the similarities between the systems of "capitalism/corporatism" and "democracy/globalism" can be examined in meta studies. These systems are systemically infested by sociopaths and psychopaths of all kinds, who who put interests and profit first, above all else.
Key words for further research:
1) 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
2) Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
3) The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
4) Dr Namie's research revealing the "Four Bully Types"
A large portion of our fellow human beings perceive these as valid traits to achieve the own political and personal priorities. "Might is right", and "end justifies the means" are still axioms of so-called superiority. There is also no reason to believe that any other system which promises power, will not attract similar numbers of bullies and psychopaths.
Reality: Liberal democracies and capitalist gain models and the pleasing narratives they spread, attract psychos like moths to the flame, and most human beings wouldn't be able to spot a psycho even if their lives depended on it. Most human beings living in symbiosis of systems either don't have the skill to recognize bad actors, nor the inclination to remove them since it is tangentially beneficial to own favored systems which affords the own good life, or have become directly entrapped by the gain models (pyramidal shaped hierarchies) lead by such bad actors. It doesn't seem to bother sufficient decent people enough to make such management styles which lead to the direct and indirect deaths of millions around the world impossible (effect a stopper against such models de jure or de facto). Indeed, based on observation, and looking back in history it can therefore be concluded that such behavior is only given a slap on the wrist, and therefore continues in so-called "good empires". Studies have shown that models based on intent of gain have rates of people with psychopathic tendencies as high as 20%. Compare that reality to the average for a normal society, or usual non-gain models of cooperation, which is around a 1% psycho rate.
There is no reason to believe other models of intent of gain (like politics) do not have similar high rates of psychos.
All empires as collectives of individuals have by nature, psychopathic and bullying tendencies. Note that the Hollywood image of the psycho and the bully is far removed from reality. The unfortunate reality is that most psychopaths/bullies remain undetected, and undetectable, because they manipulate entire groups of non-psychos/non-bullies into following them as beneficiaries, who then start entire campaigns of coverups and deception themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AAaa-wu3el "Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time." Strategies as revealed from a primary source, from the memory of those present at a speech Stalin allegedly made on the 19th August 1939, just before enterring a non-agression pact with Germany, the alpha of the system of fascist states, and self-declared enemy of the system of communism. The SU was a power on the periphy of Europe, with vast natural resources which could potentially steer a war in Central Europe, by controlling key raw materials like oil or manganese needed to wage modern wars. By allowing or restricting the flow of such economic means and resources to Germany as a result of an economic treaty as part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of August 1939, the SU could steer events and extend limited wars past a point where it might have naturally stopped previously, by drying up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very simply answered:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy.
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
Don't be a sheep.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, so true.
I heard evil government's going to send in the military...
THE 82ND AIRBORNE.
Maybe they should start beating and torturing random innocent Americans suspected of being naughty, as they have been doing in other places in the world for years, and years...
"Residents of Fallujah called them "the Murderous Maniacs" because of how they treated Iraqis in detention. They were soldiers of the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division...
One officer and two non-commissioned officers (NCOs) of the 82nd Airborne who witnessed abuse, speaking on condition of anonymity, described in multiple interviews with Human Rights Watch howtheir battalion in 2003-2004 routinely used physical and mental torture as a means of intelligence gathering....
According to their accounts, the torture and other mistreatment of Iraqis....
Military Intelligence personnel, they said, directed and encouraged army personnel to subject prisoners to forced, repetitive exercise, sometimes to the point of unconsciousness...
At least one interrogator beat detainees in front of other soldiers.
Soldiers also incorporated daily beatings of detainees in preparation for interrogations."
[hrw.org]
But, of course, only "bad people" will get targeted.
If history teaches us one thing, it is "beware of what you wish for..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
Do you wish to contribute a small share to force Israel into a negotiated peace process?
Are you American? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from their 800 military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not perfect, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions.
It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrMucc I suggest googling "what is the difference between populism and socialism".
In a nutshell, populism is the "distribution of goodies" to supporters of a specific party (usually with a typical "supreme leader" who can do no wrong)
Socialism is the "control over the means of production by the people" (note, socialism does not exclude private property, nor capitalism).
Venezuela isn't "socialist", since it is a largely capitalist system (70% of businesses).
Populism is what Trump is doing, and PragerU and other channels are screaming "socialism" at every country which fails.
Another country which failed due to populism was Greece, during the financial crisis, when the EU ran out of cheap credit to give to Greek populist leaders.
Venezuela failed when the price of oil dropped steeply (populism, not "socialism, started by Chavez).
Now the price of oil is rising, but US sanctions means they cannot sell it. So it's only a fraction of the story.
Rgds
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The distorters of history lie about everything. Even the Bible they claim to love so much....
When one does wrong, it doesn't matter how one justifies these wrongs.
Or, the true meaning of the Biblical "reap the whirlwind".
In the Bible (Hosea), Israel allied with the devil (Assyria), rather than trust in God, and subsequently lost their worldly "empire" (Hosea).
The biblical wisdom of not allying with evil (Stalin/communism) has been distorted over time, to become a justification for own actions ("reap the whirlwind" = punishment).
A fallacy.
It is only half the story, or "lying by omission".
Because "evil" has even less scrupples than oneself, and therefore allying with evil will mean that one will get screwed over by the devil one has allied with.
Read Hosea.
Even if one is an atheist, these wisdoms are based on thousands of years of human observations.
By own admission, GB allied with the devil (Stalin), and then set off to destroy the German people, rather than letting the two devils (Hitler and Stalin) "slug it out" to mutual destruction on the Eastern Front, while concentrating on the own priorities (Western Desert, Battle of the Atlantic, etc.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wrong question.
It should be "Who benefited form London's inability to change, in the face of changing circumstances?"
That was "Washington DC".
"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused," as stated as desirable by Woodrow Wilson, one of the world's biggest advocates of imperialism/white supremacy, whilst hiding behind a "an image" of being a liberal/idealist/progressive (taken from a unpublished paper of 1907, as quoted in The Rising American Empire, 1960, by Richard Warner Van Alstyne, p. 201.)
Wilson of course was simply looking at what had happened the past 200 years as the original "13 colonies", first fought for independence, and then started going N.E.W.S. (North/East/West/South), brushing away all in its path. They wouldn't stop going, until they bumped up against European imperialism, their biggest rivals.
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed."
Such statements were taken from a series of Washington DC "strategy papers". To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this."
(taken from, in parts: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive Diplomático y escritor)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries.
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
The USA/collective West is like the allegory of the unbalanced spinning washing machine. Their entire mechanism is to avoid balance, therefore exploiting eternal domestic/international crises/violence is the name of the game. The load inside totally unaware of the "Why?".
___________________
Because..."avoid" is all this giant machine ever does [see footnote].
AVOID THE EQUILLIBRIUM
That is the sole aim of the "affairs of the city" which is per definition the system of politics.
Divide and conquer works because not everyone involved knows that they are taking on a role in a power game. That's how the strategy works. Very few people really need to understand it. In English, the principle is called "Useful Innocent/Useful Idiot." From a position of power, you can animate people (usually through money, or ideology) who play a role, but they know not what they do.
The peoples in your "neck o' the woods," have been ruled by division since the beginning.
Because it's easier to divide people based on personal differences than to unite them based on their similarities. Strategically ambivalent elites use this to their own advantage. Now the intention is simply to avoid the unity in your society, in order to "rule" over the dissenters, which is the classic "divide and conquer" principle. This strategy is kept under wraps, due to a systemic desire to be "good", and on the "right side of history", and therefore overemphasizing the actions of philanthropists, political doves, peace activists, religious leaders, etc.
At the same time the activities of political hawks sowing divisions are downplayed, relativized, apologized for, mostly by politicians and strategists as the "story tellers" of history. But also by commoners, who simply parrot the stories without thinking them through, and who are NOT privy to the overall strategy (divide-and-rule in all its intricacies and nuances).
The main interest of these people for which we have been fighting wars for centuries has been the relationships between organized systems of finance and power, and systems of resources and manpower. Because united they are the only power that could threaten this group. They must make sure that the unity of others does not happen. ... For these elites ... the greatest fear is an overall creation of a unity of technology, capital and natural resources, and labor, as the only combination that has frightened the elites for centuries. So how does this play out? Well, they have already put their cards on the tilted table. They draw their invisible lines onto society.
Today all our so-called "leaders" are too weak to create systemic unity, to avoid their "friends" simply drawing lines all over the place, which they cower down to and must obey.
Like a ratchet, one click at a time, the "marching empire." Endless wars, constant disagreements, using imperialism to stay on top. Using "levers" of lies and distrust, via power players. Creating favorites: favoring the proxies who bow down and sacrifice themselves for the mastah. Pointing fingers, everywhere else, using the POWER of the mainstream media.
Divide-and-rule/conquer.
The oldest trick in the book...
Who has the POWER? Who has always had the GEOPOSITIONAL advantage of power to rule? The GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all other "buck catchers" (tools and other instruments of POWER in the Roman era style), but could not be reached themselves at any point in a historical timeline due to a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic- or political advantage?
“Divide-and-rule/conquer” as a standard strategy of power and thus the cause of nearly all conflicts in the world connects the dots on the timeline of history. Being far from the events resulting from their own meddling and political activities and being able to reach all other regions, but could not be reached themselves.
All they want is peace, they say. Who gathers the pieces of the great wealth and systemic gains when everyone else has failed to unite?
Different terms. Different eras. Same games...
The opposition that wants unity and equillibrium in a region is the "bad guy."
We, who seek true peace and harmony, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized.
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D chess." Everything you know is a variation of reality. They are playing 5D chess with the minds of 2D checkers players, within the compartmentalized brains of people who think they are smart.
》》》》》
Footnote:
Giant spinning/framing machine = MIMAC = cyclic dynamical systems of power
1
-
1
-
Theories based on good vs bad leave a lot of room for bias and interpretation depending on the vantage point of the storytellers of history. These stories are therefore overwhelmingly subjective, and therefore appeal to the emotions of an audience.
On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: The theory is a systemic analysis which is overwhelmingly neutral and objective and is therefore a dull topic to most people on the planet.
Why "dull"? Because people want to hear "stories".
The theory, however, is not a "story".
It states how INTENTIONS lead to EFFECTS.
At its core level, the theory states that throughout history there were two opposing forces in action when it comes to the concept of gain. All other human interaction when it comes to the topic of gain are subject to this. These opposing forces are not the commonly held truism as being the forces of good vs. bad/evil, but rather those forces which wish to unite to create their own systemic concord, using a variety of techniques, and those forces which gain from division, using a variety of techniques of power.
What evolves out of that as causal chain of events is then the friction, which is created as these opposing forces collide, which then fosters the emergence of narratives of good and evil, by providing the catalyst (human nature). Note: words have definitions and meanings and context matters, not only when it is beneficial from their own standpoint.
Every single struggle for power ever, every single crisis about a man-made system ever, and every single war ever, has arisen out of these two opposing forces of concord/discord (causality). Anybody may of course try to find exceptions to this rule, and will find none, unless one engages in typical human behavioural patterns.
Name the struggle, and one can point out whether it arose out of the attempt to create concord, or discord. Every single good vs. bad narrative (the "stories" people tell themselves, as they are creating systemically useful "ingroups and outgroups") ever has arisen from this very simple axiom.
On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: At its most fundamental core, the theory states that where there are intentions by systems to create unity, the opposing forces to such unity, or systemic actors, would then try to divide observed forces of unity, using key strategies, and vice-versa: where intentions of trying to create division are observed by actors trying to create unity in systems, key strategies are employed to overcome these divisions, to achieve unity in a system. These take place at the same time, making a timeline difficult to assess, contributing to the favouring of pleasing narratives for own causes, as a way of convincing large numbers of people.
Like a double-helix, these forces envelope the timeline of history. It does not HAVE a "start" or "stop."
The tier of interaction is irrelevant, and where there is an intention of achieving systemic gain, the strategies will closely resemble each other: from the micro- to the most macro level of all: International Relations.
1
-
Theorien, die auf Gut vs. Böse basieren, lassen viel Raum für Voreingenommenheit und Interpretation, je nach Standpunkt des Geschichtenerzählers der Geschichte. Diese Geschichten sind daher überwiegend subjektiv und sprechen daher die Emotionen eines Publikums an.
Zur Wechselwirkung zwischen Systemen und Strategie: Die Theorie ist eine systemische Analyse, die überwiegend neutral und objektiv ist und daher für die meisten Menschen auf der Welt ein langweiliges Thema darstellt.
Warum „langweilig“? Weil die Leute „Geschichten“ hören wollen, weil sie in einer „Gut vs. Böse“-Dichotomie gefangen sind.
Die Theorie ist jedoch keine „Geschichte“.
Sie stellt fest, wie ABSICHTEN zu WIRKUNGEN führen.
Auf ihrer Kernebene stellt die Theorie fest, dass im Laufe der Geschichte zwei gegensätzliche Kräfte am Werk waren, wenn es um das Konzept des Gewinns ging. Alle anderen menschlichen Interaktionen, wenn es um das Thema Gewinn geht, unterliegen diesem. Diese gegensätzlichen Kräfte sind nicht die allgemein akzeptierten Binsenweisheiten, die von Gut gegen Böse/Böse ausgehen, sondern vielmehr jene Kräfte, die sich vereinigen wollen, um ihre eigene systemische Eintracht zu schaffen, indem sie eine Vielzahl von Techniken einsetzen, und jene Kräfte, die von der Spaltung profitieren, indem sie eine Vielzahl von Machttechniken einsetzen. Was sich daraus als kausale Ereigniskette entwickelt, ist dann die Reibung, die entsteht, wenn diese gegensätzlichen Kräfte aufeinanderprallen, die dann die Entstehung von Erzählungen von Gut und Böse fördert, indem sie den Katalysator (die menschliche Natur) liefert. Hinweis: Wörter haben Definitionen und Bedeutungen, und der Kontext ist wichtig, nicht nur, wenn er aus ihrer eigenen Sicht von Vorteil ist.
Jeder einzelne Machtkampf aller Zeiten, jede einzelne Krise um ein von Menschen geschaffenes System aller Zeiten und jeder einzelne Krieg aller Zeiten sind aus diesen beiden gegensätzlichen Kräften der Eintracht/Zwietracht (Kausalität) entstanden. Jeder kann natürlich versuchen, Ausnahmen von dieser Regel zu finden, und wird keine finden, es sei denn, er zeigt typische menschliche Verhaltensmuster. Nennen Sie den Kampf, und Sie können darauf hinweisen, ob er aus dem Versuch entstand, Eintracht oder Zwietracht zu schaffen. Jede einzelne Gut-gegen-Böse-Erzählung (die „Geschichten“, die sich die Menschen erzählen, während sie systemisch nützliche „Ingroups“ und „Outgroups“ schaffen) ist jemals aus diesem sehr einfachen Axiom entstanden.
In ihrem grundlegendsten Kern besagt die Theorie, dass dort, wo Systeme die Absicht haben, Einheit zu schaffen, die dieser Einheit entgegenwirkenden Kräfte oder systemischen Akteure versuchen würden, die beobachteten Kräfte der Einheit zu spalten, indem sie Schlüsselstrategien anwenden, und umgekehrt: wo Akteure, die versuchen, Einheit in Systemen zu schaffen, die Absicht haben, Spaltung zu schaffen, werden Schlüsselstrategien eingesetzt, um diese Spaltungen zu überwinden und Einheit in einem System zu erreichen. Diese finden gleichzeitig statt, wodurch eine Zeitlinie schwer einzuschätzen ist, was dazu beiträgt, angenehme Erzählungen für die eigenen Zwecke zu bevorzugen, um eine große Anzahl von Menschen zu überzeugen.
Wie eine Doppelhelix umhüllen diese Kräfte die Zeitlinie der Geschichte. Es gibt keinen „Start“ oder „Stopp“.
Die Ebene der Interaktion ist irrelevant, und wenn die Absicht besteht, einen systemischen Nutzen zu erzielen, ähneln sich die Strategien sehr stark: von der Mikro- bis zur Makroebene überhaupt: Internationale Beziehungen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Africa and the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in Africa and the ME) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
David Ben-Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
“Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. … Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice.”
— David Ben Gurion. Quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan’s “Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.
“We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return.”
David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar’s Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bubiruski8067 Oh yes, it goes a lot deeper than that, and it "started" long before WW2.
It "started" before WW1.
The American Century/Washington DC had a plan.
In the leadup to WW1, there was another "new power", whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”
It was the USA.
Or "maybe they won't notice if we sneak up on them..."
Meanwhile, some were very good at "biding time" and "keeping a low profile"...
https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-american-century-what-was-really-behind-it
...until they were strong enough to eclipse "the old", and not to care anymore.
With the "leverage" geography gave them (distance from squabbling Europeans), plus a drastically increasing power, as technology shrunk the world, they knew they would just have to wait long enough until the eternally squabbling Europeans had torn themselves to shreds.
Because in the arsenals of M-A-I-N there was another "weapon".
Well-known at the time, and formulated into words by John Quincy Adams: "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country: One is by sword and one is by debt."
Washington DC: If your rivals are making a mistake, don't interrupt them...
Big difference?
While London afronted/confronted the strongest continental power/alliance which was Germany and the Dual Alliance at the time, as a matter of policy, and policy only, the USA made the strongest power/alliance (most likely to win) the "temporary friend" during WW1, only to overpower it commercially/economically/financially after a long decline as a result of the combined effects of WW1 and WW2.
1
-
@bubiruski8067 It "started" quite innocently, way before WW1.
With a London policy.
The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the rival/enemy" as a default setting...
[britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power]
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
The Germans, became "the rival/enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
Make the strongest country/alliance the rival, and "balance it out".
Nothing personal. It could be France one day, Russia the next. It could be "alliance x" one day, it could be "alliance y" the next.
"Temporary friends" one day, "temporary rival/enemy" the next.
After 1871, and especially after German industrialisation, it was simply Germany/the Dual Alliance.
A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.
It came first before all other considerations.
It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding
1) alliances (or no alliances)
2) treaties (or no treaties)
3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord)
4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle)
5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint)
6) when to engage in arms races
7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences/arms limitations or during international political differences.
Go over your history, and spot the "handwriting"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Din Djarin The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
[Google: britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power]
The British Empire was actually protected by a strong Central Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying any European country was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, and so dissed by Mers el Kebir that they slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
1
-
@Seamus O'Flatcap Too bad British leaders sucked at geopolitics...
Yes, also a fitting end for "Empire" by "switching the lights off" (see quotes by Grey)
So, for the first time in 20 years "the lights in Europe would go out", and Europeans would not see them go on again...ever.
They would flicker again 1919, to 1939, and then go out again.
With that, they had sacrificed their position of rulers of the world, and others would take over...
Because, the type of rule or economy plays little role in the outcome of whether one "rules the world" or not.
Geography plays a far bigger role.
So at the turn of century London "ruled the world" because geography isolated them from the continent and their island status gave them the upper hand at a time when war was still the common way to determine "top dog" or not....
When development of weapons produced ever further reaching weapons of war, GB's island status did not offer the same measure of protection anymore...so they went down.
The weapons of 1900 couldn't harm the British Empire, but the weapons of 1945 could....
In that era around WW2, it was the USA which was (as the sole power) isolated from this "great game", and benefited as the result of its geographical isolation, and because there was that "one ring which ruled them all"...lol, but in a good way of course.
And it wasn't only the forces of evil who wanted to "rule the world", but also people who thought they had a God-given right to do so...
[Google: American_Century]
...and who thought they were better than everybody else...
[Google: American_exceptionalism]
And down went Empire too...
1
-
@Stephen Hall A little lesson in geopolitics:
Poor British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire.
In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies...
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
[Google: American_Century]
Sorry 'bout that.
Causality is a b*tch...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mike Pompeo tweeted about BRICS: "The B and the I both get that the C and the R are threats to their people."
Him and his cohorts, are going to do their utmost to steer the inhabitants of the BRICS states against each other, so that the one is set up against the other.
How? By employing the divide-and-rule technique.
Oldest trick in the book...
My sincere thanks to a fellow youtuber (@realvipul) who thought my one of essays explaining the divide-and-rule/conquer strategy of power was "TLDR" or too complicated and therefore ran it through AI...
"The comment discusses the concept of "divide and rule" as a strategy employed by powerful entities to maintain control. It argues that human systems are inherently chaotic due to the complexity of human nature, making them susceptible to manipulation through division. The example of the Roman Empire's conquest of Britain around the year "0" is used to illustrate how this strategy works, emphasizing that the motivations of individual collaborators are less important than the overall effect of division in enabling the empire's dominance. The comment then extends this analysis to the American Century, suggesting that the same strategy was used to exert influence over Europe. It highlights that the goal is to create maximum division among opposing groups while maintaining unity within the ruling power. The comment criticizes the media and political leaders for perpetuating a cycle of lies and wars, often under the guise of opposing territorial expansion while simultaneously promoting systemic expansion. In essence, the comment argues that the "divide and rule" strategy is a fundamental tactic employed by powerful entities to maintain control, and that understanding this strategy is crucial for comprehending historical events and current geopolitical dynamics."
How to break up larger entities like the EU or BRICS?
The same way North American Native American tribes were set up against each other: ally with some, against others and hide the strategy behind a nice-sounding story of heroes and glory. European settlers once grew into North America using this technique, morphed into "the USA" and then gained North American hegemony using this technique, morphed into the American Century and gained global hegemony using this technique, and Washington DC/Pentagon/"think tanks" are now using the divide-and-rule technique as desperate attempt to hang onto global hegemony...
Can it really be that simple to understand complicated historical and current events? Yes, it can.
1
-
@voodoo_chili From globalresearch
"The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”
During the 1970’s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.
Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980’s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.
America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.
The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now [2015] the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom."
1
-
1
-
1
-
Awww...spot the imperialist...
Cute.
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better.
Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power.
In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. Washington DC used the same techniques (favouritism of specific "buck-catchers") that it had previously used to overpower European states and empires. The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
-------------------------------------
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war being incrementally escalated by the West, in the Ukraine.
This war was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life, on ALL tiers, often by force, coercion, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world).
That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power).
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
The intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia (which incl. the ME), in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Weak leaders lead to hard times in the form of endless crises and wars. Deceitful leaders lead to constant dissent, which mainly benefit those powers which can stay out of mass conflagrations like war, or step in last to gain from the mutual exhaustion of all the others.
Outside powers can insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this desirable disparity continues, so that "gain" can be siphoned off.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
1
-
The "biggest loser" of the systemic conflagrations that were "WW1" and "WW2" was the great divider/grand encircler London/British Empire. Around the year 1900 its lords set out to encircle (by proxy) its biggest contester: Germany.
HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books. Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source)
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies. From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
Logic? Reason? If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
EPISODE I:
1901: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world." SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies (ALL MORE THAN ADEQUATELY ELABORATED in the below comments section) called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened.
EPISODES II thru IV:
Lotsa other stuff happening.
EPISODE V:
If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003. Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power. When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died. They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it. The urge to deflect blame for the own actions (encirclement strategy) which backfired leading to the end of the British Empire is human nature. The reality is that lower tiers don't "win" anything (gain) in wars. The higher systemic tiers "win" at the expense of the masses. The end result is then always the same.
99% lose, and the tops of the pyramids of power (industrial, financial, political tiers) "win" bigtime.
If I were the biggest Dunning-Kruger Medal of Honor recipients in history, I too, would put up a stiff resistance, with deflection, framing, and spinning the "nice story"... The biggest "buck-catchers" the world had ever known. Fighting so others gain at their expense. Trying to dig a hole for their neighbors, and fell into it last. British Empire: Gone with the wind...Lost to the American Century.
It is said that "No empire lasts forever", and this is specifically true for the narcissistic ones.
Fell into the pond, like Narcissus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Edward Wallace Now you are describing what happens when individuals or small groups hijack an NGO, a government agency, or whatever other entity under discussion, for an own (usually an undemocratic decision made "behind closed doors")
A statement which implies that ALL (each and every, or at least majorities) individuals which are a part of an entity, automatically support or silently condone the actions of a few individuals or groups from that entity, is "an agenda" in itself.
Note here, that without evidence, one has a weak argument.
As for "the Muslims hating everybody".
BS
The current terrorism problem is a result of causality. In other words, history is casual (cause and effect). While Muslims were left to themselves, to rule themselves, and live according to own customs, without OUTSIDE western meddling, they didn't bother anybody.
History aside, "Muslim invasions" were not better or worse than ANY other empire wishing to dominate others. Note here than while "Muslims" invaded Spain and tried to invade Europe, "Christians" wiped out entire tribes and empires in their quest for dominance. Therefor, ditto. Historically seen, one religion was not "better" or "worse" than the other.
It was not until the meddling in internal affairs starting after WW1, that opposition to western meddling turned into violence.
Note also, that terrorism is the EFFECT, NOT the cause.
The cause was western meddling...
In other words, we are merely "reaping" what was sown from the 1920 on wards...
In case you disagree: tell me, what would you do if outside powers tried to take your land and your home away?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LeviPaladin
OK, I'll keep my sentences short, so you can follow :-)
She could have voted, or not voted.
That is her right and obligation towards those she represents.
She has the right to vote, or abstain.
Nobody, but nobody said she couldn't.
Therefore, just like everybody else who voted that day she should have either cast her vote, or abstain.
Perfectly ok
No problems...
But noooooooo
Poor Christian snowflake had to go on moral judgement campaign concerning the people whose unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness" she wanted to restrict.
The USA is a country which separates church and state.
Her personal convictions are irrelevant.
Nobody asked her to preach her own moral standards.
She chose to link her personal convictions, to a political decision she took
You want to have a Christian Sharia state?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UCJJwP_7uJL5yLQljDa-oXaQ I'm not a member of the LGBTQ community, but I'll defend their unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness".
They are not telling you how to live your life.
I'm not a member of any religion, but I'll defend any religious supporter's unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness".
As long as no member of a religious group tries to impose his/her personal convictions onto others, I'll defend them.
Yes, I'll even defend your rights, even if you dislike me, smear me, and falsely accuse me.
It's a principle you see.
It's called "do onto others".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
British leaders went to Sudan and Iraq, bombing everybody else, thinking nobody could bomb them...
The instigators like best buddies Harris, Portal, Trenchard and Churchill went waaaay back. They had no problems terror bombing women and children in Iraq during the 1920s, in "ops" euphemistically called "air policing", and kept a secret from the general public back home.
It was justified by the elites in London as "a cheap alternative to land forces".
So what did the citizens of Iraq ever do to GB? Or neighbors? Or did they invade anyone to "deserve it" too?
From historynet:
"Air policing is a relatively simple strategy. Aircraft operating out of well-defended airfields are supported by fast-moving armored car squadrons. When an outlying village or isolated tribe refused to pay taxes or ignored the central government, airplanes would be dispatched to strafe and bomb the offending group. Trenchard explained he could achieve results more cheaply with his RAF squadrons..."
Such fun, terror bombing and strafing civilians, cowering in tents and simple villages made of mud and stone. Such a "great opportunity" (sic.) to test new weapons, like delay action bombs (time fuses), or fragmentation bomblets on innocent civilians...
Once a terror bombing fanboy, always a terror bombing fanboy.
Their pathetic empire's HQ back home in London, Bristol, Coventry, Hull, Birmingham, etc., etc. would one day "reap" as it "sowed", a hundred times over...
Well.
Who would've guessed the 2,000-year old biblical logic counts for all...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@isaacazminov8733 "In 1986, the US Defense Department funded a two-year study by the RAND Corporation, which found that the use of the armed forces to interdict drugs coming into the United States would have little or no effect on cocaine traffic and might, in fact, raise the profits of cocaine cartels and manufacturers. The 175-page study, "Sealing the Borders: The Effects of Increased Military Participation in Drug Interdiction", was prepared by seven researchers, mathematicians and economists at the National Defense Research Institute, a branch of the RAND, and was released in 1988. The study noted that seven prior studies in the past nine years, including one by the Center for Naval Research and the Office of Technology Assessment, had come to similar conclusions. Interdiction efforts, using current armed forces resources, would have almost no effect on cocaine importation into the United States, the report concluded.[148]
During the early-to-mid-1990s, the Clinton administration ordered and funded a major cocaine policy study, again by RAND. The Rand Drug Policy Research Center study concluded that $3 billion should be switched from federal and local law enforcement to treatment. The report said that treatment is the cheapest way to cut drug use, stating that drug treatment is twenty-three times more effective than the supply-side "war on drugs".
Google "How Portugal ended it's War on Drugs"
That final conclusion has already been proven fact for the last 30 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA/collective West is like the allegory of the unbalanced spinning washing machine. Their entire mechanism is to avoid balance, therefore exploiting eternal domestic/international crises/violence is the name of the game. The load inside totally unaware of the "Why?".
___________________
Because..."avoid" is all the machine ever does.
AVOID THE EQUILLIBRIUM
That is the sole aim of the "affairs of the city" which is per definition the system of politics.
Divide and conquer works because not everyone involved knows that they are taking on a role in a power game. That's how the strategy works. Very few people really need to understand it. In English, the principle is called "Useful Innocent/Useful Idiot." From a position of power, you can animate people (usually through money, or ideology) who play a role, but they know not what they do.
The peoples in your "neck o' the woods," have been ruled by division since the beginning.
Because it's easier to divide people based on personal differences than to unite them based on their similarities. Strategically ambivalent elites use this to their own advantage. Now the intention is simply to avoid the unity in your society, in order to "rule" over the dissenters, which is the classic "divide and conquer" principle. This strategy is kept under wraps, due to a systemic desire to be "good", and on the "right side of history", and therefore overemphasizing the actions of philanthropists, political doves, peace activists, religious leaders, etc.
At the same time the activities of political hawks sowing divisions are downplayed, relativized, apologized for, mostly by politicians and strategists as the "story tellers" of history. But also by commoners, who simply parrot the stories without thinking them through, and who are NOT privy to the overall strategy (divide-and-rule in all its intricacies and nuances).
The main interest of these people for which we have been fighting wars for centuries has been the relationships between organized systems of finance and power, and systems of resources and manpower. Because united they are the only power that could threaten this group. They must make sure that the unity of others does not happen. ... For these elites ... the greatest fear is an overall creation of a unity of technology, capital and natural resources, and labor, as the only combination that has frightened the elites for centuries. So how does this play out? Well, they have already put their cards on the tilted table. They draw their invisible lines onto society.
Today all our so-called "leaders" are too weak to create systemic unity, to avoid their "friends" simply drawing lines all over the place, which they cower down to and must obey.
Like a ratchet, one click at a time, the "marching empire." Endless wars, constant disagreements, using imperialism to stay on top. Using "levers" of lies and distrust, via power players. Creating favorites: favoring the proxies who bow down and sacrifice themselves for the mastah. Pointing fingers, everywhere else, using the POWER of the mainstream media.
Divide-and-rule/conquer.
The oldest trick in the book...
Who has the POWER? Who has always had the GEOPOSITIONAL advantage of power to rule? The GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all other "buck catchers" (tools and other instruments of POWER in the Roman era style), but could not be reached themselves at any point in a historical timeline due to a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic- or political advantage?
“Divide-and-rule/conquer” as a standard strategy of power and thus the cause of nearly all conflicts in the world connects the dots on the timeline of history. Being far from the events resulting from their own meddling and political activities and being able to reach all other regions, but could not be reached themselves.
All they want is peace, they say. Who gathers the pieces of the great wealth and systemic gains when everyone else has failed to unite?
Different terms. Different eras. Same games...
The opposition that wants unity and equillibrium in a region is the "bad guy."
We, who seek true peace and harmony, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized.
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D chess." Everything you know is a variation of reality. They are playing 5D chess with the minds of 2D checkers players, within the compartmentalized brains of people who think they are smart.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA/collective West is a divide-and-rule Mecca for the mega-rich.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Not Buy: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," buy 2nd hand quality products, or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just "not buy" ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to end the global chaos caused by forever wars? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join "not buy", because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, nothing has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by "not buying" all big brands. Thank you Croatia for showing the way it could be done (see "DANAS"). Start "not buying" them all. Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East and West, our own "attitude problem" re. "using soldiers to fight wars on civilians" the same.
Soooo
Franklin "first we made the commies strong, then we sang the Nam songs" Roosevelt
...teamed up with ...
Curtis "first we made it rain fire, then we got stuck in commie mire" LeMay
What could possibly go wrong?
The USA could have, and should have offered a conditional surrender, and used Japan as a bullwark against communism in Asia.
By 1945, Japan was already militarily defeated.
In both theatres of war, our leaders stupidly thought they could handle the commies and make little deals with Stalin.
"Feeding the crocodile with "little nations" hoping the crocodile would eat you last".
rotfl
And what happened?
Kicked out of China.
War in Korea. Still in Korea.
Then kicked out of Vietnam.
Hundreds of proxy wars on every continent.
Thousands dead, billions of dollars wasted during the Cold War.
Now "Chy-naaah" is a problem? Well, "reap as you sow" counts for all, or so the saying goes.
The Taiwan crisis? South China Sea? Suck it up, snowflakes....
Blow all your dollahs on patrolling the world...
A causal effect of a totally failed grand strategy.
The oldest war grand strategies are still valid.
"In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good." Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Whether east or west, the mistake was thinking that "total war" invalidates age-old wisdom. Our leaders signed away half the world to the commies, in efforts to appease them.. And ended up fighting them in the other half for the next fifty years...lol.
Now who was the one who critisized appeasement as a big "no-no" again?
So here is the point we should refer to our beloved Bibles to see what happens to the hypocrite. As a matter of fact, we can simply google it: "What does the Bible say about the hypocrite?"
And that is exactly what happened...
1
-
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Creating rubble in German cities contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created facts . The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, machines, scientists, Sarin/Tabun plants, and dismantled and carted off hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kormac80 It's "divide and rule".
It's ALWAYS divide and rule if governments defend wrongs against the wishes of most of its inhabitants.
For the "dividers", the resulting division is always good. They can rule over the fear, the discord, the "finger pointers", and the "pointed at" alike.
The "winners"?
It those who send 3.8 billion to fund Israel each year, in Washington DC, almost all of it flowing back to the USA in the form of arms purchases...
NATO? It has been the "battering ram" for the USA/collective West ever since the end of the Cold War. It set up human beings as instruments of power, so that the true POWERS can stay out of wars, and steer/finance/manage the chaos, crises, and resulting wars...
It's how "divide and rule" works...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kormac80 Entire systems based on divide and rule/conquer strategies, can be masked behind other terms or hidden by the use of euphemisms.
When one states the term Apartheid, most people will say that it was a system of "blacks against whites". Superficially this is true but as mostly in history that is just half the story. Upon closer examination it was an intricate system of favoratism in a complex political system of divide and rule, set up by the hegemony. Whites historically had the domineering political, military and financial power and could therefore divide all others into systems called races and classes. Cape Town (administrative capital city) and Pretoria (legistative capital) created a hierarchy of favorites in a power structure; favoratism is an instrument to implement division. Once the hegemony has division it can implement a pecking order of access to its own power. The more favored a system is, the more power it is afforded. Race or class, rather than meritocracy, was employed as an instrument of power to effect a favorable outcome for those who historically had the power and dominion. The different races in Southern Africa could not play the same game back against the political hegemony, because the existing power structures overwhelming favored the white minority in a minority rule system as a result of the previous history of colonialism which went back a long time. Any intentions by the leaders of those who ended up deeply divided, to try and overcome the imbalance by creating the single enemy as being "white rule", was dispersed by the hegemon preventively: by creating a system of favorites, with ascending levels of privilege afforded by the hegemon according to race and status in a complex system of favoratism.
Meritocracy is also an instrument of power and privilege, and those who wield power can offer desirable positions in systems as "carrot" to strive for (strategy). And one can again zoom out or zoom into almost every level of society or international relations desired.
At the core all divide and rule strategies are the same. It has little to do with race or colonialism
1
-
@Kormac80 I am actually following the definition of the term "divide and rule," which I've studied for 30 years now.
divide and rule
phrase of divide
BRITISH
"the policy of maintaining control over one's subordinates or opponents by encouraging dissent between them, thereby preventing them from uniting in opposition."
[end of]
Regardless of the source, the definitions are similar.
Everything politicians and other elites do which fits that definition, is "divide and rule," even if so-called "smart" people simply invent new words like "Apartheid" in order to try to mask an age-old strategy.
It is the strategy of power the government of the RSA followed, regardless if the name they chose.
They divided inhabitants, with top down rulings = divide and rule.
In southern Africa, whites turned up and played "Roman Empire," same as everywhere whites turned up all over the world.
The new "Roman ruler"-style mastahs, even named their capital city after an old "divide and rule" term, namely "Pretoria"...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetor
1
-
@Kormac80 Zionism became a tool of the British Empire during WW1.
After WW2, the hegemon causing problems in the Levant and the ME in general, became Washington DC.
The Cold War and "oil" (interests), geopolitical/grand strategy strategic interests (like military bases, or the control of geographical chokepoints), was the reason for all of the US/collective West's meddling in the ME for more than 100 years...
From a position of POWER, the USA/collective West uses the strategy of "divide and rule" over these minor powers in the ME, and the Levant.
The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they initially created with their own desire to CONTROL and DOMINATE the world, as terrorists...
It's "divide and rule".
It's ALWAYS divide and rule if governments defend wrongs against the wishes of most of its inhabitants. For the "dividers", the resulting division is always good. They can rule over the fear, the discord, manage the "finger pointers", and moderate the "pointed at" alike.
The "winners"?
Those who act like the historical "Rome" in the background, pulling the strings of POWER, affording favoratism to chosen ones, for their own aims and goals.
It's how "divide and rule" works...
1
-
1
-
@lashlarue7924 It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
After the collapse of France, ending the stage of WW2 in grand strategy of "three powers" on continental Europe (GB/France/empires + Germany/fascist states + SU/communism) , potentially morphing into "2 powers in Europe."
The fear in Washington DC, exposed as early as 1912, by such authors (strategists) like Homer Lea, that a united continental Eurasia could "strike in three directions" if Japan joined in, and common goals could be found and common objectives decided upon.
Washington DC's biggest fear being that the alliance between Berlin and Moscow might even hold up and deepen, in case common goals could be found against the British Empire, in case London decided on quitting and throwing in the towel (peace with Berlin, after the collapse of France.)
After Mers el Kebir, a massive sigh of relief must have been heard in Washington DC.
Roosevelt, I'm sure, smiled benighnly...
A naval man, I'm sure he understood such things.
The "bloodletting war" (John Mearsheimer) in Europe would continue, one stage at a time...
In geopolitics and grand strategy, citing the Italian East African Campaign actually supports the above: If Italy put pressure on GB/Empire in Africa in general, and Germany attacks London/England by air and sea, this could then intice Stalin to show more interest in "joining the winners", and to get lured into joining the Axis Powers, or at least gravitating closer towards them.
None of this precludes Italy from equally seeking to strike at "weak and demoralized" France, by equally striking into Tunesia or Algeria, or seaborne attacks (landings) in French North Africa in order to secure Axis bases on the Atlantic coast (end goal = Morocco), or threatening Gibraltar.
As a French strategist, the first priority in Jun/July 1940 was the defense of French citizens and subjects, which GB through her own actions had actually PROVEN that they would not "defend to the last bullet" (Battle of France, which had just ended).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because there is only "history".
As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives".
One perspective should not rank higher than another.
Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable".
The reality?
As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
1
-
1
-
If anybody wishes to know what is in store for the EU and other American "best fwiends" after 2025, look back in history to what the USA did to the British Empire after WW2, when it was bankrupt and weak. The first victim of the American Century was not as proclaimed and the generally accepted narrative of history, that "it was the USSR" (sic./Truman Doctrine, "Iron Curtain"-narrative), but the British Empire, which was cut down to size turning London from "British lion" to "poodle" in around 25 years, using economic warfare.
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500. My shoutout to the original author whose site is since removed.]
A blueprint for how one Albion deceived the other, to become the "next Albion".
The transfer of power from one control freak system to the next.
Pure unfettered opportunism.
After 1945 the USA used its own might as hammer and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). By 1945, Stalin (Moscow), smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and witnessing the collapse of virtually every other European power, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2. It was overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has self-centred imperialist aims and goals , one eventually destroys all alternatives, and when you try to defend everything, you'll eventually "defend nothing" (Friedrich the Great, re. a false allocation of clout and resources, in grand strategy and geopolitics).
That was preceded in geopolitics by a Washington DC shift away from a global non-interventionalist stand on international relations, towards a more active engagement in world affairs and global expansion which incl. European affairs (the study of "Offensive Realism") which started around the year 1900, symbolized by the Spanish-American War (1898). Something London lords happily signed up for with the "Great Rapprochement" (aligned and associated "friends only, no obligations", in the "interests"-reality of imperialism). London must have thought the good times were coming, alongside their "new friends" and making the rules for everybody else. Two Albions getting happily engaged...
What could possibly go wrong putting your trust in Washington DC?
AROUND THE YEAR 2000
In reality, your "friends" in capitalism over the Atlantic can't wait for history to repeat, to wait until Europe is weak again, exhausted from war, down in power, ready for the carving knives of OUTSIDE imperialism, all by the "friends" who are standing by and standing down to enter and benefit from the division and destruction they themselves greatly contributed to after the 1990s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wenn 90% der Menschen sich ein "Victor Orban" als Kanzler wünschen...
-----------------------
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better.
Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power.
In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." (end of)
There is no doubt that Washington DC is attempting to repeat this "success" (pov) in the rising powers of Asia.
The strategy can be observed to be implemented in the same way as was set up post-1900 in Europe, but in Europe the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer theory) were Great Britain and France.
Today, it is India being used in the same role as France was 100 years ago. In case of a wider war in Asia, as India is set up against China, qui bono if all lose?
The technique Washington DC employed up to the year 2000, is an almost exact repeat of the technique they used to overpower Europe around the year 1900: DIVIDE AND RULE.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matsjonsson9492 I've already countered that.
Something like two weeks ago.
I asked if Japanese children, 5-year olds, "deserved" the nukes?
You didn't answer...
So.
Again...
"Since World War II, during a supposed golden age of peace, the United States military has killed or helped kill some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 84 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. The United States is responsible for the deaths of 5 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and over 1 million just since 2003 in Iraq.
Since 2001, the United States has been systematically destroying a region of the globe, bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, not to mention the Philippines. The United States has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces in three-quarters of them."
Did the billions of people living in these places deserve what they got?
Answer the question, or remain silent...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Stay out of the world's troubles, created by systems of greed seeking to create and gain from the flames they fan all over the world, hiding behind their stories of "good intentions."
"When two neighbouring countries fight each other, just know the USA visited one." - Nelson Mandela (Region: Southern Africa/Big picture timestamp: Cold War).
The statement is not quite correct.
When two neighbours fight each other, just know that an empire has been there previously.
It's the old joke that "If two fish are fighting, the British Empire has been there."
It is a truism about imperialism in general, and how divide-and-rule works.
Set up neighbours against each other, using a variety of ever-consistent techniques and strategies. With absolute certainty, the tribal leaders of Europe joked the same way about the Roman Empire 2000 years ago, as these outsiders/Romans plus proxies, openly flaunted their "Pax Romana" whilst in the background covertly favouring one "local neighbour", whilst setting them up against the others, using whatever reasoning it wanted.
Outsiders will come into a status quo (also covertly politically or via NGOs as the strategy of "cultural- and political capture"), and these outsiders try to lay down the foundation for division by setting up a "new-found friend" against its neighbours and if it is unsuccessful in one "state" (status quo), it will simply go to the neighbours and try the same. The more neighbours, the more chances of a successful division of powers, which is beneficial to the outside "divider". The more "neighbors", the merrier the games. Because if these neighbours all end up squabbling and fighting, the "divider" vacuums off gains (of various kinds) in the background. Such implemented and leveraged divisions do not necessarily stem from evil intent, since most of the participants in a divide-and-rule strategy have absolutely no idea that they have become "actors" in a great game, the scope of which they remain ignorant of. Even those with good intentions (political doves) can create division, because the "hawks" hide behind the stories the "doves" write...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same people and systems. Different times. Same games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books.
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source)
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies.
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
EPISODE I:
"... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies (ALL MORE THAN ADEQUATELY ELABORATED in the below comments section) called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
EPISODES II thru IV:
Lotsa other stuff happening.
EPISODE V:
If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003
Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice.
Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power.
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 ...tweak Lend-Lease to a bare minimum.
A Russian general once said (and I'm paraphrasing) that the Russian soldiers rode into Berlin with American boots on their feet, with bully beef in their bellies, on the backs of Studebaker trucks...
A good start to "stopping the commies" from taking over half the world, was by curbing Lend Lease to the most minimal level, and emoting Stalin to the status of "cobelligerent" (rather than a full alliance).
From wiki: "The United States delivered to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941, to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the high-octane aviation fuel,[32] 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic consumption.[32] One item typical of many was a tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars.[61]"
British equipment:
Significant numbers of British Churchill, Matilda and Valentine tanks were shipped to the USSR.[67]
Between June 1941 and May 1945, Britain delivered to the USSR:
3,000+ Hurricanes aircraft
4,000+ other aircraft
27 naval vessels
5,218 tanks (including 1,380 Valentines from Canada)
5,000+ anti-tank guns
4,020 ambulances and trucks
323 machinery trucks (mobile vehicle workshops equipped with generators and all the welding and power tools required to perform heavy servicing)
1,212 Universal Carriers and Loyd Carriers (with another 1,348 from Canada)
1,721 motorcycles
£1.15bn worth of aircraft engines
1,474 radar sets
4,338 radio sets
600 naval radar and sonar sets
Hundreds of naval guns
15 million pairs of boots
Without this logistical support, the Eastern Front would have stabilized somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea.
By 1944, both sides would have been utterly exhausted, and D-Day could have rolled past Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, or Budapest...
1
-
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 A delicate matter, because these strategists were plotting on taking over the nr.1 spot, from the British Empire.
The leaders of the British Empire seemed to have held the mistaken idea that closer relations with the USA would guarantee their Empire against "greedy continental rivals", but they were wrong.
Because, the type of rule or economy or political model chosen, plays little role in the outcome of whether one "rules the world" or not.
Geography plays a far bigger role.
So at the turn of century London "ruled the world" because geography isolated them from the continent and their island status gave them the upper hand at a time when war was still the common way to determine "top dog" or not. They could play out the ambitions of rulers on the continent against each other, always siding with the weaker waring state or empire, and thereby "engineer" solutions which they perceived would guarantee the survival of their Empire.
When development of weapons produced ever further reaching weapons of war, GB's island status did not offer the same measure of protection anymore...so they went down.
The weapons of 1900 couldn't harm the British Empire, but the weapons of 1945 could....
In that era around WW2, it was the USA which was (as the sole power) isolated from this "great game", and benefited as the result of its geographical isolation...
[Today, with nukes, that "logic" of using (or rather "misusing") conventional wars to become top dog does not apply anymore].
US leaders like Wilson (WW1) or Roosevelt (WW2) knew they just had to wait long enough for European leaders to dismantle what 500 years of empire building had achieved, and to pick up the pieces.
Washington D.C. "going west" started with the consolidation of power with the Civil War, and ended when US President Eisenhower forced GB and France (together with Israel) to stand down in the Suez Crisis. For all practical reasons ending the period in history when London or Paris got to decide on the defense or the expansion of their spheres of influence...
If it wasn't yet quite clear who the alpha male was, and who the beta males...that was it. Of course, all conveyed in very friendly manner, and very diplomatically, as usual...
In that respect, there were many visionary US leaders, and few in Europe...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thevillaaston7811 Lend-Lease did not "win the war on the Eastern Front" or "saved the SU from the Nazi invasion".
There was a limit to the potential maximum German penetration into the SU, set by many factors. Mainly, the tenacity of the Soviet soldiers, weather, crappy infrastructure, massive distances, and the lack of production by the Axis powers to overcome this.
In short, the Germans could never have achieved the "A-A Line", let alone hold it for any length of time.
Due to the massive destruction of factories, infrastructure, shelter, etc. by the war, Russian scorched earth measures during their retreat, and German scorched earth measures during their retreat, the entire Eastern Front was a wasteland.
Similar to North Africa, where the ability to supply the front line made or broke any attempts at deep advances, so was the SU in the massive land area between the Baltic and the Black Sea.
According to David Glantz, the American military historian known for his books on the Eastern front:
Although Soviet accounts have routinely belittled the significance of Lend-Lease in the sustainment of the Soviet war effort, the overall importance of the assistance cannot be understated. Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make the difference between defeat and victory in 1941–1942; that achievement must be attributed solely to the Soviet people and to the iron nerve of Stalin, Zhukov, Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, and their subordinates. As the war continued, however, the United States and Great Britain provided many of the implements of war and strategic raw materials necessary for Soviet victory. Without Lend-Lease food, clothing, and raw materials (especially metals), the Soviet economy would have been even more heavily burdened by the war effort. Perhaps most directly, without Lend-Lease trucks, rail engines, and railroad cars, every Soviet offensive would have stalled at an earlier stage, outrunning its logistical tail in a matter of days. In turn, this would have allowed the German commanders to escape at least some encirclements, while forcing the Red Army to prepare and conduct many more deliberate penetration attacks in order to advance the same distance. Left to their own devices, Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht; the ultimate result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers could have waded at France's Atlantic beaches.[45]
Fact remains, that similar to North Africa, no side would have had the ability for large scale operations far away from the home fronts.
Any German attempt to advance would have run out of steam after a few hundred miles advance to the east, and (without the key aid in logistics), the same would have applied for the SU until around 1945.
A 30% total of trucks (Lend Lease) is significant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thevillaaston7811 The only thing I'm "pro" is for the values of freedom, liberty, and self-determination (that is both on the micro level of individual human beings, as well as on the macro level of countries and empires).
I'm not pro-Nazi, even if you repeat it 1,000 times.
I'm as anti-Nazi as I'm anti-Communist.
Wishing that one lost, doesn't mean wishing the other won.
That is a dumb accusation.
I'd have preferred if both lost, by playing them out against each other, by "tweaking" Lend-Lease (no logistical support at all) and "aiding" Berlin by less Strategic Bombing.
The combined effect of that, would have meant the the Eastern Front would have stabilized somewhere in the middle, leading to both systems strained to a breaking point.
By your own logic of "Stalin hero worship", I could say you are a commie. Or is it that you don't like either?
In case you are a "Stalin fanboy", do you like systems of collectivism, Gulags and "bullets in the back of the head" as state measures?
So stop the bs.
Or do you prefer debates in which I accuse you being a commie all the time? Hmmmm?
I also don't like the British Empire (colonialism) or US Corporate Imperialism, but I realize that in WW2 they were simply the best of all the worst systems.
They were not "fighting for freedom, liberty or self-determination".
I'm not a fool.
But still better than the worst, which was Communism and Fascism.
So, the Western Allies would have had my support.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Allow me to educate you with a brief overview of the GEOPOLITICS ensuring the future of the British Empire (and by extension, the French Empire) at the end of WW1.
In other words, the "logic" which dictated Versailles.
Remember the policy of Balance of Power?
And the Heartland theory? Hmmmm?
Let's put it another way.
History for 2 dimensional little brains which can't compute in 3 dimensions :-)
In very simplistic terms, one could say that in 1939 "Germany had the industry and the technology", while the SU had the "manpower and the raw materials". Of course, this is just a very simple way to explain a complex geographical situation.
According to the British policy of "Balance of Power", London would never have allowed any continental alliance or hegemon to control all of it.
According to this binding policy, London (dragging along France as the "lapdog"), always have allied against the stronger power, to avoid a single hegemon control all of Central and Eastern Europe (in a nutshell "German brains and Russian muscle").
This policy had the intention to protect the Empire.
If, Poland fell to either Berlin or Moscow, then that could only lead to Nazi forces storming into Moscow (German victory, and gain of raw material), or Soviet forces storming all the way to the Rhine (Soviet victory, and gain of industry and technology).
Proof of this is Operation Unthinkable. When Soviet did enter Central Europe, London wanted to (again), ally with the weaker side to "balance the power"...
The entire idea behind the policy of Balance of Power was to avoid any of these scenarios, and as the policy dictated, the Empire would always ally with the weaker alliance/country to keep the balance.
In a nutshell.
Survival of the British Empire = keep "German brains" and "Russian muscle" separated.
Get it?
Do you finally get it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So.
I'll have to answer my own question again...
Why did Germany initially build a navy?
At this stage, supported by GB, because the Russian and British Empires were fighting in Asia ("The Great Game"), and imperialist GB and France clashed and squabbled all over the world.
Germans were fwiends lol...not really (aka London's still secret policy of Balance of Power meant that should it come to war, GB and Germany were already predetermined enemies. Make sense? No?)
Anyway...
Germany built up a navy to protect her coastal cities and shores completely unaware that they were already London's enemy after uniting, and industrializing rapidly.
The often stated "naval arms race" being a cause for WW1 is a misconception. Historians pin their flag on the date "1906", saying that here is where that "history" started.
Actually, the naval arms race started in 1871, with an unsuccessful attempted blockade of northern German ports during the Franco-Prussian War by the French navy.
The "cause" was therefore the intention of German leaders to protect German citizens from the threat of blockade. Blockading an enemy, was one of the favorite means of economic warfare at the time. Naval bombardment was a favorite tool of blackmail, extortion, and power politics.
It therefore "started" with a German-French naval arms race, and expanded to a German - French/Russian arms race after France and Russia formed an alliance (Entente Cordial).
When GB joined the Tripple Entente, this "naval arms race" was already in full swing. Obviously, German leaders then had to protect German ports from a potential blockade of THREE navies. British, Russian, and French.
In other words, the German naval re-armament was an "effect" of previous actions (causality).
Not THE "cause" for an Anglo-German Arms Race, but an "effect" of previous French-Russian-German naval arms race.
The German leaders reacted to a potential threat (blockade).
Furthermore, they did not know that London had already made them an enemy as a default setting.
A confusion of "cause and effect", by simply pinning a "starting date" randomly on a timeline.
Also, study the design parameters of the German ships built up to WW1.
Note that they were close range, coast defence vessels without any global reach.
Did you know that the Imperial German Navy wasn't a "blue water navy"?
Do you even know what that means?
1
-
1
-
@thevillaaston7811 STAGE 1 HISTORY FOR DUMMIES
Germany: Can we be friends? I mean, look at nasty Rusky over there, trying to steal India from you. And don't even get me started with those Frenchies....Napoleon, ha, ha, ha...
London: uhm...err...well...don't mind us, we're just splendidly isolated over here. Peacefully minding our own business. [grins] Why don't you build some ships? Here's some plans, ships, and technology....
Germany: Gee, great, thanks. Shall we discuss becoming real friends? You know, like allies?
London: unm...err..well...ahm...not today, I'm not feeling well...next week?
Germany: oh ok...
1
-
1
-
@whitewolf1298 As anybody can discover for himself, and as a general rule, navies are divided into certain categories...
Also, as a general rule, "global reach" can only be achieved by a Blue Water Navy...
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy
...as advocated by Mahan, and that is as true today as it was in 1850, 1900, or 1950.
No blue water navy = no global reach
The global reach achieved by a Blue Water Navy is composed of two elements.
1) the design of the ships themselves
2) logistics / naval bases
As to point 1 and 2.
If one studies the design of the German ships themselves, and German naval bases, one can only reach one conclusion.
Before WW1 there were never any plans for "global reach", i.e. any attempt to "rule the world" as often claimed.
As design criteria, one can simply look at the drawing (flared or raked bow = Blue Water Navy) and a few statistics like size, range, and livability.
The design elements of ships (true even today) are divided into two main criteria : offensive elements (firepower, speed and seakeeping) vs. defensive elements (armor protection, nr. of watertight compartments, sturdy construction).
Nations which desire "global reach", built fast, large, high firepower, long ranged, seaworthy vessels, supported by a dense network of naval bases, and international ports (either by alliance, or by own construction) supported by large fleets of tankers, repair ships, and replenishment ships.
Less emphasis is placed on armour, and much more on speed and range.
Nations which wish to concentrate on the own doorstep, built smaller, sturdier, ships with smaller caliber guns and more/thicker armor, and with with stubby bows (seakeeping less important, since designed for coastal waters).
In short, one can gather information about the policies of a nation, by merely looking at the design of its weapons. And this is as true for tanks as it is for ships...
A nation that built the S-tank (Sweden) had no desire to "rule the world" :-)
As for the design of the the Imperial German Navy's ships....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Imperial_German_Navy
....and you can see that from the destroyers (called "torpedo boats" right through to the big gun battleships, the design criteria fits that of the coast defense navy (today called "Green and Brown Water Navies"). You don't have to look at all of them, but maybe click on a few links and look at the specifications, and filter it with the information above.
As for the numbers of units built, that was a result of the alliance system (see my initial comment right at the top). As the Russians found out at Tsushima, there was no point sending a large fleet halfway around the world, if the ships and crews were going to arrive in bad shape...
(No recreational facilities, docks, replenishment, etc.)
Simply having a lot of ships, doesn't imply wishing to "rule the world".
Strange fact.
The first pure German capital ship that fitted the criteria for a Blue Water Navy was the Weimar Republic's Deutschland Class of 1933.
To conclude: any accusations of Germany trying to "steal something from the British Empire", or "trying to overpower the Royal Navy" or "threatening GB" are at best misconceptions, at worst straight out lies....
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 Stalin, or why we shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win)
Stalin, or why we should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis?
Why it shouldn't have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion?
Why everything should have been done so that the war lasts as long as possible, in order that both sides become exhausted?
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 Here is the truth, because as a British PM in those days, any British PM, you had an Empire to protect.
A PM heading an Empire which refused Stalin's insidious "requests" for "an alliance", for a good reason.
Because the SU was already safe, and in no need of "an alliance." It was protected by barrier of independent states in the west, and only had Japan to worry about. As long as Stalin did nothing, the status quo would persist...indefinitely.
Because the Limitrophe States which Stalin wanted as a precondition for such "an alliance"...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitrophe_states
....was not only a wall.
Poland was not only a barrier, but also "a gate"
Should Stalin ever try to break out of the World Island he sat on, the gate would open and Nazis would come pouring in...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
Should Stalin ever try to attack or eclipse western interests in China, or the Middle East, he'd get a suitable response.
He knew it, and it infuriated him...
The Limitrophe protected the British Empire, and Stalin wanted to erode it away with promises of "an alliance".
Hitler was a lapdog, and he knew it, and it infuriated him...
When Chamberlain came to Munich and put him in place, Hitler had to bow down to a little man with an umbrella, which was also "a big stick".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology
Because Hitler cowered at Munich and gave in, not Chamberlain and historians have it all wrong...
Here's the thing about the deceiver.
The deceiver will always tell you "what the other side is planning" (sic.), but the deceiver will never tell what he is planning himself...
Stalin.
The great deceiver...
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 Stalin's devious offer for an "alliance" was sinister.
The aim of Stalin's politics (hinting at fake promises of mutual assistance) in case of war were never honest.
Neither before 1938, nor after.
Pre-1938, what would Stalin have done in case Hitler had invaded Czechoslovakia? (under any scenario with or without the "fake alliance")
Answer: Nothing
He would simply have pointed at his N/A Pact with Poland, pointed at "nasty Japan" in the East and said: "Sorry you guys, I'd really really really like to to help you chaps out, but, but, but..."
That would have been the result of trusting a mass-murderer and psychopath who's idea of a "debate" was a bullet in the back of the head...
A war between GB, France and Germany.
Luckily Chamberlain was wise enough to stave that off as long as possible, and to prepare the industrial and financial foundation for a war.
Post March 1939, Stalin made it perfectly clear what he wanted.
He wanted GB and France to "sign away" Poland, The Baltic States and Romania.
So dissed, what would these states have done the minute they found out they would be thrown under the bus in return for a Brit/French "dirty little deal" with Stalin?
Again, an easy answer: flee into the loving tender open arms of the eagerly awaiting Axis...
1
-
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 ...and even in hindsight, Appeasement was not a mistake, but the only sensible thing to do.
A "bed" the power players at Versailles had eagerly made, and now had to "sleep" in. Too bad...
Unfortunately, the way the world had been set up post-WW1, there was no alternative to appeasing Hitler.
And even those relying on "Churchill" (aka "the hardliner") for their alternative history, must admit reality.
If in power, Churchill would have done the same as Chamberlain, because (reality) the British Prime Minister doesn't have the authority to declare war out of the blue, and that would have depended on how the ministers would have debated it out...
The second "reality" was that in 1938, the Legion Condor was in Spain, next to Gibraltar (15,000 well-trained and combat ready soldiers with tanks and air support). Also, an Italian dictator keen on "Mare Nostrum" and a Spain which would have liked Gibraltar back....hmmm....a rather unfortunate combination of "reality" concentrated in one area vital to the British Empire.
Churchill of course, was a naval strategist.
1) Would Churchill (a navy guy) have risked losing Gibraltar to "protect little nations"?
2) What would the lords in London have thought about "protecting little nations"?
3) And even if they did value "little nations" enough to declare war on their behalf, what would have been the first military/strategic priority had it come to war in 1938?
Especially the last one being not a difficult question to answer...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The strategies of the people who lead us remain the same.
The people who lead us in democracies change.
What they do in regards to foreign policy once in power remains fairly constant, irrelevant of who leads at any particular time.
The old sayings of "exchanging our leaders every few years" might avoid encrusted domestic politics and structures to a degree, but it has almost no effect on foreign policy. The way we vote has almost no influence on foreign affairs, which are mostly the effects of the long term policies of a few "corridors of power"-players.
Unfortunately not any of the highly visible televised leaders we vote for...
Remember that thought for a while. The essay will address it again at the very end.
Of course we should never allow the leaders' good or bad achievements concerning domestic affairs to interfere with analysing the equally important foreign policy. These are entirely different topics which does not interest people equally. It should.
Clinton: "It's the economy stupid".
Machiavelli: "Keep the masses well-fed and...oh never mind..."
Most people in a country won't react to foreign policy blunders, unless the effects of such blunders start affecting their own lives.
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
Whether we are discussing Trump, or Clinton or Biden, or Wilhelm II or the "proud rich hektoring squibbing London lords" (quoting Jefferson) of the past is irrelevant: they and their second and third tiers read the same books. We "commoners" mainly judge based on our bellies and bank accounts. We should start paying attention, because the reason why very small factions within governments (democracies or more authoritarian governments) succeed in their eternal ways, is because a majority of people don't react until their emotions are "triggered" by a major event...
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
No matter how many truly good people there are, with truly good intentions, it is easier to divide people based on what makes them different, than to unite them based on what they have in common. No matter how many truly good people we point at or give noble Nobel Prizes to, they cannot affect the actions of "the few" who have made it their perennial aim to divide.
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
Re. the topic "age old strategies", which remain fairly similar across the ages.
Just now, at a fundraiser in New Orleans Donald Trump made an insider joke re. an age-old strategy of divide and conquer.
An "insider joke" at an "insider event", just like John "Bomb bomb bomb, Bomb bomb Iran" McCain once made one waaaaay back. The same John McCain who just so happens to have gone to Kiew in 2014 to "support best fwiends". Supporting the "proud and rich and hektoring and squibbing" new friends who always need "help and support" of course (another "insider joke"). Regarding their own internal/foreign policy matters, it is different of course. The standpoint is to never to allow an outside power to affect/effect an internal problem, or to allow anybody else to get involved when an own foreign policy strategy is implemented, unless as "a best fwiend" of course.
When it comes to others and their problems? Answer: "Meddling" for "own interests" is perfectly OK.
Of course in regards to solving own political differences, never expect an outside power to come to "help out": there will be a "price tag".
My advice when somebody shows up to help: Have a close look at the background of exactly who is coming, and what "strategic studies"-centers they subscribe to. Be nice, but be-ware...lol
Of course Trump's "joke" (send US aircraft to the Ukraine in Chinese markings, to get Russians and Chinese fighting) belies an age-old strategy.
A scheme as old as the mountains, and has a limitless variety of nuance. In 1939, Stalin of course, was fully aware of how to "get others to fight", and then sit on the fence smoking a cigar..." enjoying the "racket". Just sell raw materials to Nazi Germany and being "nice" to all while waiting to see who "wins". Of course, for the "finger pointing" Moscow in 1939: they could point at the "inferior greedy capitalists" who "just can't get it right" and always end up at war. Stalin in August/September 1939: "Ima gonna wash my hands in innocence." A trick as old as the Bible itself.
Once the desired region of the world is at war, one can do business and keep the racket going (I'm sure Stalin was amused by reading "War is a Racket"/Smedley Butler or something similar). Or even worse: once entire regions of the world have been turned into "sh*tholes" (another Trump quote in a different context) the "good guys" can gain from the misery of others.
Whilst "in the own shoes", everybody is the "good guy".
In the eyes of the commies they were the good guys of course.
From an own perspective, everybody is the "good guy", and only strategies matter.
Solution: Figure out the strategies, which is boring and tedious.
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
The intended or desired outcome of "the scheming few" and their "insider jokes"? Get others to fight (in the strategy of "divide and rule/conquer" the formulation is "to foment trouble") and then "sit back and enjoy the popcorn" (Trump).
Our leaders know that.
They have this advantage over us.
How to put a stop to all this? An endless struggle. No matter how many truly good people there are, with truly good intentions, it is easier to divide people based on what makes them different, than to unite them based on what they have in common.
The first step is to acknowledge and admit the issue, and to stop doing the bidding of these fine gentlemen in suits, or be fooled, or to deny their existence, or become a tool of these "few" and scream and denounce those warning us.
In regards to our own governments these "splinters in the own eye" are indeed tiny but powerfully irritating, until removed.
1) During the early-1990's (Gorbachov as President of the UdSSR and Yelsin as President of Russia), the option of "an agreement of sorts" (a suggested "morphed NATO" suitably changed to adapt to the changed times) existed to replace the Cold War setup (old global balance of power during the Cold War).
2) At around the turn of the century (around the year 2000, and the first Putin term) local wars started to cloud the optimism of the 1990s, but it was still realistic.
3) Then after 2010 our leaders should have at least aimed for "neutrality of some kind" between the players.
First a new hope, offered by a new situation, followed by a "diss"...
The only thing which changed between "around 1900" and "around 2000" was the alpha.
Finally.
Today one often sees the "...but, but the Ukraine is free and sovereign, and had the choice to join NATO if they wish. It was their choice...".
The answer to the rhetoric?
True. Whoever said they didn't have a choice?
Whoever said that NATO didn't also have a choice to just say "no", and suggest an alternative that ensures everybody's security issues?
But that is what happens if one ends up with highly televised ex-comedians and ex-boxers as leaders and figureheads, rather than global strategists.
One ends up as "ice" which will be crushed for the goals of the "icebreakers".
"Thin ice" which is signed away and sacrificed...
NATO does not "sign up" a state/country in a civil war or other similar state (war/duress).
Our leaders knew that.
They had this advantage over us...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By "no fault of their own", I am merely referring to those Arabs who declared their neutrality when neighboring Arab states attacked.
Here we shouldn't confuse entities like "religion", "citizen", or "country".
Note here, even the fact that many (now de facto Israeli citizens) Arabs declared their neutrality, or even support for the new state, it didn't save them from retribution...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
Why should an Arab living in the new state (after it's declaration) suffer because of the actions of OTHER Arabs, with whom they had nothing to do?
Not all of the 700,000 "Palestinians" were against Israel, and many fled in panic after events like Deir Yassin became known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_and_massacres_during_the_1948_Palestine_war
Whether intentionally, or unintentionally, this exodus was exactly what some of the founding fathers of Israel wanted.
I don't agree with the "Arabs better off in Israel", since it is a generalization which has nothing to do with the people themselves, but more a result of the situation (situational vs. dispositional debate).
Would you state that Arabs in oil rich countries are not well-off, or that the standard of living here (including innovation, for example in Dubai, Quttar, etc.) are not at a similar level as Israel?
IMO, the standard of living has to do with resources. Israel obviously benefited immensely from western support, and the influx of well-educated (mostly in western countries) in the initial stages (say, directly following WW2), when much of the Arab countries were hardly out of colonialism.
Were it not for the constant violence, the Arabs of Palestine could have enjoyed a similar state of wealth as Libanon did in the 1960s and 70s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I guess you've got no problem calling a sarge in the military "sir", because everybody else does, and he wants you to. If your doctor wishes to be addressed with "Dr. Jones", I guess you'll do it. It isn't a big deal, so what's the problem...
So, if a transgender wishes to be addressed by a specific gender pronoun in pursuit of the "live, liberty and happiness" granted by the Declaration of Independence, just do it, because it isn't a big deal...
Nobody says you have to. Just try to be less of an arsehole, and make the world a better place. You know, like Jesus used to say: "do onto others".
Have you got a problem with doing onto others?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why is anybody surprised that an empire keeps on voting for an imperialist?
"If the USA gets a cold, the rest of the world gets the flu".
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Honestly, what more is there to say? USA: "If I get a cold, the rest of the world is going to suffer worse." This must be the most pathetic acknowledgement of subjection I've read my entire life. If your global neighbor gets an economic "cold" and you can't simply send them a get-well-soon-card and continue with your own life unaffected, you are already in an internationalist/globalist entanglement.
"When the USA votes, the rest of the world looks on in awe and anticipation".
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Honestly, what more is there to say? USA: "If Americans vote an imperialist into office, the rest of the world is going to have to deal with it." This must be the most pathetic acknowledgement of subjection I've read my entire life. If your global neighbor votes in an imperialist and a convicted slimeball into office, and you can't simply send them an "oh what a pity"-look on your face and continue with your own life unaffected, your safety assured because there is a GLOBAL BALANCE OF POWER, you are already in a globalist entanglement.
It was not difficult to predict, that an imperialist system in which the sane half of its population has little power to change anything, will vote another establishment billionaire slimeball into power...
-----------------------------------------
One of the most common counter-arguments to criticism of the American "forever wars" these past 250 years, is that "The USA isn't an empire, because it never sought territorial gain."
True, but one doesn't have to change any borders if one has already reached the top of the mountain, looking down at the minor powers one will play divide-and-rule with.
During the Era of European Imperialism, and carrying on seamlessly for the past 100 years or so, the world has been global Apartheid with a two-tier "us/them" system of everything: from concepts such as "wealth" to "justice" and "control", and with "gardens for a few" and "jungles" for the rest around the perimeter, and any deep changes can be vetoed by those who hold the true power. With the silent consent of the USA/collective West during the First Cold War (1947-1990), the REGIONAL HEGEMONY in South Africa was allowed to play their divide-and-rule games (aka "Apartheid") in a region of their world which was Southern Africa constituted as being South Africa, Rhodesia, Namibia (own sphere of direct/indirect influence) and the outer regions of Botswana, Zambia, or Mozambique, and that the borders need never change in order to play the "games" of divide-and-control/rule. It was CONTROL of their own borders, and control OVER the neighbors, which they sought. Notice that the borders never changed, but Apartheid/divide-and-rule flourished anyway. According to the same "logic" it should be fairly easy to brush away any criticism of the actions of the Apartheid state South Africa and its "forever wars" during the Apartheid era, with a flippant "The RSA never sought territorial gain." All historical European global empires, incl. the British Empire, were of course "Apartheid empires" since they had two/three tier systems as default settings and they had different sets of "rules" for "me and for thee" as rules-based ordering others around, and considered this state of affairs perfectly OK. Of course, imposing such "rules", paid off handsomely in the upkeep of the "gardens". They practice divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, from their "gardens", as "my rules trump your rules", just like South African systems of power did in Southern Africa, not only inside the own borders, but beyond.
Apart = separate = divide.
Divde the "jungles", to keep the "gardens with pools" nice and luxurious...
Divide-and-control/rule.
A globally operating HEGEMONY can likewise play the same divide-and-control/rule games everywhere on the globe and that the borders need never change in order to play the "games". The previous HEGEMONS had the clout to practice divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, just like Washington DC systems of power did in the USA, not only inside the own borders, but beyond.
To play games, the borders need never change. All it needs is POWER, a set of rules for ordering everybody else around, and a position of impunity from any setbacks. The attitude is then that somebody else can pick up the tab. Today, our easily-deceived Western leaders in the self proclaimed "good West" (not strategists) tell us that there will be peace, as long as everybody adheres to the belief system that "the borders may never change". Everybody who changes the established borders is "evil" (unless of course, it is the own capital cities, or their proxies doing so: then it is "justified" by finger-pointing somewhere else). The own two-tier "us/them" system says so, so it must be "true."
1
-
The "Western moral superiority"-fans are just crying because they realize that the good ol' days for the American Century, which came about because the rest of the world was basically destroyed for the 40 years after WW2, are coming to an end. In 1945 when everybody else was "down" in power, and "exhausted" (reality), the USA could almost single-handedly employ the DIVIDE-AND-RULE STRATEGY over the rest of the planet to skim off the world's wealth at the expense of 95% of the planet, disguising the desirable hegemony as philanthropy and benevolence.
Around the year 2000 the USA as sole hegemon could have done their best, but they chose to do their worst (PNAC, and so on).
The rest has arisen from those ashes after the year 2000, and now the good ol' days are over.
----------------------------------------
If you're not in the club of US/collective West "superiority", just remember: the USA/collective West have never had any ulterior motives (lol). All they want to ever do, is "save the world from bad guys" (more lol). It IS just like that, because WE say so ourselves, so don't argue (super lol).
"In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population ...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
Obviously, simple math means that it left the rest of the world (around 94%) to somehow get along with the rest left over. To have considered that as even remotely fair, regardless of any other circumstances, speaks volumes. Today it is still roughly 30% in the hands of 12% of the global population, as the rest rises. Again, silence on this speaks volumes. How were in the past (Age of European Empires), and are the 1%-ters in the West and their international friends TODAY (global elites/globalists) going to ensure that this desirable and ADMITTED (quote) "inequality" and dollar disparity continues? THAT is the question they are trying to deflect from, with endless cycles of circular reasoning.
Answer: With the divide and rule technique of top-down power, in efforts to split the main BRICS nations and other rising and stable regions of the planet apart.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mercer1995 I'm pointing out how the strategy of "divide and rule" works.
Nothing else.
I do not take sides.
For the strategy of "divide and rule" to persist, it needs people like you. Not saying you are "good" or "bad," but that you are a human "banner waver."
For imperialism to persist indefinitely, it needs people who are willing to deny reality.
It is said that if somebody cannot explain something in a few minutes, that they are most likely trying to deceive you. I can explain what happened in the Levant after WW1 in 30 seconds: After WW1, the peoples of the Levant were "divided" into camps, by foreign empires, by drawing lines on the map, and with top-down "rulings" = divide and rule/conquer. It is the top-down szrategy of POWER. The 650,000 locals who lived within these "drawn borders" (Palestine) neither drew these borders, nor were they consulted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
She didn't just simply abstain from voting.
Doing so, was within her rights and nobody objected to it.
PragerU is putting a spin on this story, to incite outrage.
Here is what happened.
She didn't merely chose not to vote (perfectly ok), but linked a political decision she took, to her own personal convictions.
That, should be frowned upon, because the USA is based on the separation of church and state. That means, as a leader, you're not supposed to value personal convictions higher than the law or founding documents of the USA, like the Constitution, or The Declaration of Independence. Note here, that it guarantees every American (not only Christians) the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness".
We should be constantly reminded not to stand in others way (within the laws of the land) who pursue happiness.
1
-
Thanks for your reply, to which I actually agree wholeheartedly.
IMO, Chan made one tiny mistake, which I'll try to point out with a Biblical "put yourself in their shoes" situation.
Imagine this had been the other way around: "As a LGBTQ, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true. I don't believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and that sex and marriage is meant for everybody who wants to have a little fun. Where this bill of same sex marriage crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
[Note, I took Chow's own statement, and simply changed a few words to depict the personal convictions of another human being]
So I'm just guessing that that sounds a bit condescending :-)
But, I would agree that the reaction of those offended was a bit over the top, and they should also have "put themselves on Chow's shoes", and let it be...
It would certainly lead to a better life for all, if people stop preaching and making mountains out of molehill if one feels offended.
The way I see it, 50 or 100 years ago this would hardly have made waves, and the internet has a lot to do with how "outrage/fake outrage" spreads virally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cryovizard9461 No, you should have common sense that stops capitalism from turning into corporatism, with all the accompanying negative effects (cronyism, plutocracy, corruption, mercantilism, globalism, cartels, etc., etc., etc.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The narrative here is entirely beside the point. Allow me to help out, with a similar event. Not exact, because "history only rhymes", but close enough to explain how diplomacy works.
Drax went to Moscow in 1939 to "talk", not "negotiate".
According to the narrative Stalin (whose snowflake feelings got upset about not receiving an equal "Munich" treatment, with the highest level London diplomat jetting off to see Hitler) felt dissed, just like the French did when a "mere captain" arrived to discuss the future of their own empire (at least, the possessions in N.Africa).
Apparrently Stalin understood quite well what sending a lower prominence delegation meant.
Also what power of negotiation means.
Neither Drax nor Holland had these powers, which is why they were sent off with matters unaccomplished.
The French Navy was going nowhere without political assurances. Say, from the USA to step in to safeguard Algeria with own ships, and protection for the French citizens here (at the time, Algeria was a part of France proper) from the threat of invasion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The world is global Apartheid, with a two-tier "us/them" system of everything: from concepts such as "wealth" to "justice" and "CONTROL", everything can be vetoed by those who hold the true power.
By golly, who would've have ever guessed that a REGIONAL HEGEMONY can play their divide-and-rule games (aka "Apartheid") in a region of the world which was Southern Africa constituted as being South Africa, Rhodesia, Namibia (own sphere of direct/indirect influence) and the outer regions of Botswana, Zambia, or Mozambique, and that the borders need never change in order to play the "games" of divide-and-rule? Notice that from the end of colonialism, the borders never changed, but Apartheid/divide-and-rule flourished anyway...
"Going across all the neighbours borders, now and then have a little fun." - Eddy Grant
All historical European global empires, incl. the British Empire, were of course "Apartheid empires" since they had two/three tier systems as default settings. They practiced divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, just like South African systems of power did in Southern Africa, not only inside the own borders, but beyond.
Never mind "Apartheid Is-real doing the same these days, there is a bigger picture to all of this.
By golly, who would've have ever guessed that a GLOBAL HEGEMONY can likewise play the same divide-and-rule games everywhere on the globe and that the borders need never change in order to play the "games". They practice divide-and-rule as a matter of policy, just like Washington DC systems of power did in the USA, not only inside the own borders, but beyond.
To play games, the borders need never change. All it needs is POWER, a set of rules for order, and a position of impunity.
Today, our easily-deceived "leaders" in the self proclaimed "good West" (not strategists) tell us that there will be peace, as long as everybody adheres to the "belief system" that "the borders may never change". Everybody who changes the established borders is "evil" (unless of course, it is the own capital cities, or their proxies doing so: then it is "justified" by finger-pointing somewhere else, see the first opening line in this essay). The own two-tier "us/them" system says so, so it must be "true."
Should anybody dare to oppose the official "good side/bad side"-narrative of the rich sitting on their thrones of power, the disinformation playbook of the empire will strike back, and their MO will be predictable:
The Fake: Conduct counterfeit narrative and try to pass it off as legitimate research.
The Blitz: Harass those who speak out against the empire and its friends.
The Diversion: Manufacture uncertainty where little or none exists.
The Screen: Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies.
The Fix: Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy.
This closely mirrors the empire's habit of using human beings as tools, as "barriers", "vassals", as "taxpayers" or other forms of voluntary/involuntary support. The empire has ways to employ human beings in direct or indirect manners, including secondary and tertiary functions of support which the supporters are not even aware of (say "taxpayers" or "propagandists"). Never mind how intelligent a state is, there will always be those who justify everything they do, or invent new words if the old ones have received an unfavourable connotation by past events. In other words, if a term "sounds bad", simply invent a new term to distance ones fluffy feelings from reality, and carry on doing as always: Divide-and-rule the planet.
For example, if the term "concentration camp" sounds bad, simply invent a new term (re-education center, detention center, etc) and the "empire" can steam ahead, same old strategies of power, different words...
All the above are all typical divide-and-rule strategies, which are employed on all tiers of systems intent on aggressive gain, and which are therefore typical of all systems of gain, including capitalist and democratic systems. The technique is common in the systems of "capitalism/corporatism" and "democracy/globalism" and can be examined in meta studies. It's almost guaranteed that as soon as one reaches the "sensitive zones" of the empire and systems of gain, the MSM flak will get real thick, and the apologist knee-jerk reactionary forces will get really triggered...
All systems of gain are systemically infested by sociopaths and psychopaths of all kinds, who put interests and profit first, above all else.
Key words for further research:
1) 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
2) Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
3) The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
4) Dr Namie's research revealing the "Four Bully Types"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SirAntoniousBlock So true.
The key to control of the planet is strategy.
What are strategies, like "divide and rule/conquer.
There are no "mystically ubiquitous powers" like in the fictional universe of the Star Wars galaxy, as created by George Lucas.
But "force" does exist: they are strategies, mostly instinctively grasped by most human beings.
Strategies means the power to influence millions of people, in good/light and bad/dark ways.
This "force" is what gives a leader his power.
It's thought patterns created by all living things.
It surrounds us and penetrates us.
It binds all human beings on the planet together.
You must learn the ways of this "force" if you're to understand the plot.
Some "heroes" have (quote) "... flown from one side of this planet to the other (and) ... seen a lot of strange stuff, but (have) never seen anything to make them believe there's one all-powerful 'force' controlling everything. (Nothing) mystical that controls destiny ...all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense."
People who don't understand strategy, tend to believe.
They believe in all-powerful weapons.
They end up "believing" in a lot of weird things...
They end up very proud of all the technological terror people have constructed.
They believe technology is the key to control, and domination.
The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of this "force"...
This "force" is strategy.
It can control weak and insecure minds.
No, it cannot "lift heavy things" and make you "fly around in the air", lol. That is fantasy.
But, don't underestimate this force 🙂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnwattdotca Palestine was recreated out of an Ottoman Empire province, by the British Empire to act as a geostrategic barrier between the Heartland and the Suez Canal. The Canal was of course, at the time the "umbilical cord to India", and the lifeline of all possessions of the British Empire in the East: Hong Kong, Aden, Singapore, Australia, Malaysia, etc., etc., etc.
[Google: The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History]
The plan?
Allow whites to flood in, and to buy land.
Once these whites became the majority, these "property owners" would naturally "protect" their own "land" against any developing threat from the north, directed at the "balls of Empire", so to speak...
Smart...
But, it turned out a bit different.
The "property owners" became terrorists (Irgun, the Stern Gang, etc.), and started killing their "enablers", British soldiers and officials...
After Empire collapsed after WW2, the USA stepped in and took over the role of Alpha Male...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The disinformation playbook of the empire will strike back, and their MO will be predictable:
The Fake: Conduct counterfeit narrative and try to pass it off as legitimate research.
The Blitz: Harass those who speak out against the empire and its friends.
The Diversion: Manufacture uncertainty where little or none exists.
The Screen: Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies.
The Fix: Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy.
This closely mirrors the empire's habit of using human beings as tools, as "barriers", "vassals", as "taxpayers" or other forms of voluntary/involuntary support. The empire has ways to employ human beings in direct or indirect manners, including secondary and tertiary functions of support.
These are all typical divide and rule strategies, which are employed on all tiers of systems intent on aggressive gain, and which are therefore typical of all systems of gain, including capitalist and democratic systems. The technique is common in the systems of "capitalism/corporatism" and "democracy/globalism" and can be examined in meta studies. It's almost guaranteed that as soon as one reaches the "sensitive zones" of the empire, the MSM flak will get real thick...
These systems are systemically infested by sociopaths and psychopaths of all kinds, who put interests and profit first, above all else.
Key words for further research:
1) 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
2) Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
3) The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
4) Dr Namie's research revealing the "Four Bully Types"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Brits thought they were sooooo clever and make a "pig's breakfast" out of Europe, as they always did as a matter of policy.
"Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
James Hacker : That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister [rolls eyes and laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister.
No "satire" there at all.
Not "funny comedy" at all if one ends up as a "tool" of London's little divide and rule schemes.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists...
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States),.
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating brothers from brothers. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Ask the affected millions what they wanted for themselves? Nah. That was below the lords...
So in 1939 Stalin and Hitler came along and made "a pig's breakfast" of the London lord's little scheme for their "divided continent" (see Secret protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact).
The lords wanted to play divide and rule with the continent's inhabitants indefinitely, for own gain, and in the end the UK became a tool of Washington DC, and they lost their Empire. Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945 and a subsequent few years.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was reduced to the status of "a scrap of paper". Awww. Sad. No nukes for the "special relationship" best fwiends 😅😆😁
Subsequently Washington DC used British weakness and made a pig's breakfast out of British markets (economic warfare), and re-divided the world into "east and west".
Didn't anybody notice?
The world went from a divided continent, to suit the expansion/protection of the British Empire/London, to a divided world, to suit the expansionprotection of The American Century/Washington DC.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Fact is that Trump, or any other previous admin, did not stop this "(systemic) slow march".
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemony.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quiet or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
Just claim hero status for the self, and blame everybody else for everything which goes wrong.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Already predicted. Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
------------------------------------------
Footnote
With Europe set up against Russia, the USA will pivot to Asia to instigate trouble here (already the strategy since Obama).
We are supposed to admire them, but they never give anything of geopolitical/grand strategy value back. Ever. Ratchet principle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
British leaders went to Sudan and Iraq, bombing everybody else, thinking nobody could bomb them...
The instigators like best buddies Harris, Portal, Trenchard and Churchill went waaaay back. They had no problems terror bombing women and children in Iraq during the 1920s, in "ops" euphemistically called "air policing", and kept a secret from the general public back home.
It was justified by the elites in London as "a cheap alternative to land forces".
So what did the citizens of Iraq ever do to GB? Or neighbors? Or did they invade anyone to "deserve it" too?
From historynet:
"Air policing is a relatively simple strategy. Aircraft operating out of well-defended airfields are supported by fast-moving armored car squadrons. When an outlying village or isolated tribe refused to pay taxes or ignored the central government, airplanes would be dispatched to strafe and bomb the offending group. Trenchard explained he could achieve results more cheaply with his RAF squadrons..."
Such fun, terror bombing and strafing civilians, cowering in tents and simple villages made of mud and stone. Such a "great opportunity" (sic.) to test new weapons, like delay action bombs (time fuses), or fragmentation bomblets on innocent civilians...
Once a terror bombing fanboy, always a terror bombing fanboy.
Their pathetic empire's HQ back home in London, Bristol, Coventry, Hull, Birmingham, etc., etc. would one day "reap" as it "sowed", a hundred times over...
Well.
Who would've guessed the 2,000-year old biblical logic counts for all...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@caractacusbrittania7442 Uhm...no.
Germany was already "the rival in peace/ the enemy in war" waaaaaaaaaaaay before 1933.
London was not on friendly terms with Berlin (or rather "acted" as if "friendly", but meanwhile...), because of an own policy, by own choice.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Note here, "London", and not the other "99%" of the people, business partners, organizations, etc. which got along just fine with Germany at the time (1880s, 1890s)...
Why was this policy fundamentally flawed?
Because as the alpha male it is much wiser to take the strongest entity as "the friend", as the default setting (politically friendly, and/or a partner).
Not to make it "the rival" in peacetime, and "enemy in war", as the default setting, as London did.
Note.
The policy came first.
It existed long before Germany even existed, or "nasty Wilhelm" stepped into the scene.
It predetermined "friend" or "enemy".
It had little to do with what any German leader did politically.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Andy_Babb Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Yes, Bismarck planned on creating an opposing power to cancel out the grip London had on continental powers.
London could always use the ambitions of continental leaders against each other, by creating "shifting", non-binding, temporary "friendships". When France (Napoleon) threatened to take control of all of the continent, Prussia were the "friends", etc. (see alliances in the Napoleonic Wars). France, as the dominant continental power was the "rival by default", "enemy in war". When Germany united and surpassed France as the single most powerful state/alliance, Berlin automatically took over the role of "rival by default" from Paris. Berlin (plus their junior partners in Vienna/Budapest) now had to be "balanced out".
"The term balance of power came into use to denote the power relationships in the European state system from the end of the Napoleonic Wars to World War I. Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself. Naval supremacy and its virtual immunity from foreign invasion enabled Great Britain to perform this function."
[Britannica]
If Bismarck could have managed some sort of understanding between Berlin, St Petersburg, and Vienna/Budapest, with mutual goals, it would've become an unconquerable power.
That however, was difficult, if not impossible (the powers had incompatible aims).
Such an alliance could have shown London the middle finger, and done whatever they pleased (the "leverage" in political crises and the geographical advantage in a time of war would have been firmly on their side).
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 "The vital question was how to secure control for the Heartland. This question may seem pointless, since in 1904 the Russian Empire had ruled most of the area from the Volga to Eastern Siberia for centuries. But throughout the nineteenth century:
The West European powers had combined, usually successfully, in the Great Game to prevent Russian expansion.The Russian Empire was huge but socially, politically and technologically backward—i.e., inferior in "virility, equipment and organization".
Mackinder held that effective political domination of the Heartland by a single power had been unattainable in the past because:
The Heartland was protected from sea power by ice to the north and mountains and deserts to the south.Previous land invasions from east to west and vice versa were unsuccessful because lack of efficient transportation made it impossible to assure a continual stream of men and supplies.
He outlined the following ways in which the Heartland might become a springboard for global domination in the twentieth century (Sempa, 2000):
Successful invasion of Russia by a West European nation (most probably Germany). Mackinder believed that the introduction of the railroad had removed the Heartland's invulnerability to land invasion. As Eurasia began to be covered by an extensive network of railroads, there was an excellent chance that a powerful continental nation could extend its political control over the Eastern European gateway to the Eurasian landmass. In Mackinder's words, "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland." A Russo-German alliance. Before 1917 both countries were ruled by autocrats (the Tsar and the Kaiser), and both could have been attracted to an alliance against the democratic powers of Western Europe (the US was isolationist regarding European affairs, until it became a participant of World War I in 1917). Germany would have contributed to such an alliance its formidable army and its large and growing sea power.Conquest of Russia by a Sino-Japanese empire (see below).
The combined empire's large East Asian coastline would also provide the potential for it to become a major sea power. Mackinder's "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland ..." does not cover this scenario, probably because the previous two scenarios were seen as the major risks of the nineteenth century and the early 1900s.
One of Mackinder's personal objectives was to warn Britain that its traditional reliance on sea power would become a weakness as improved land transport opened up the Heartland for invasion and/or industrialisation (Sempa, 2000)."
[Mckinder "Pivot of History", from wiki]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 The theory (when presented) dealt with the existing and potentially future development of power.
Power (like today) concerns a wide spectrum of criteria [military, industry, GDP, infrastructure (incl. railways), population development, education (well educated = good soldiers in modern wars), technology, advances in societies, etc.]
You don't have to tell what happened (history).
I know what happened.
The theory remains intact.
Had Eurasia united, it would have overpowered the British Empire.
Note again: you don't have to try and "counter" the above with a "comeback" of what happened (history). I know what happened.
The theory is still correct (standpoint of technology when the theory was created).
Only after the creation of LR strategic bombers and nukes (1940s) and ICBMs (1960s) was it outdated.
By that time the British Empire was toast anyway, so it didn't matter anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 OK, just so that we're on the same level here.
Nobody was "better" when it came to their "attitude problems", expressed by the acronym "MAIN" (here, militarism and imperialism).
There was indeed nothing wrong by Wilhelm calling London out for their crooked scheming.
You mean your point of "which of Wilhelm's attempts (under Caprivi aimed at better understanding between Berlin and London"?
Answer:
See the Helgoland-Zanzibar Treaty, threaded in by Bismarck, and carried out by Wilhelm in an attempt at better understanding concerning imperialism/colonialism, by signing a win-win agreement, which was later used in attempts to discredit him, both internationally and internally (Bismarck called the treaty he had supported himself when he was in charge, "an exchange of a button against a trousers" in an attempt to inflame the pro-colonial movement against Wilhelm, aka "the Kolonialvereine").
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Releasing Berlin from its obligations towards St. Petersburg (non-aggression), automatically opened up the path to an accord/alliance of sorts between London and Berlin.
Yes, that would then have created an overpowering alliance, which nobody could have resisted.
Not France.
Not Russia.
But you just won't get it.
You don't understand how the creation of overpowering alliances actually lead to peace.
Some, on the other side of the Atlantic, in Washington DC got it because unlike the London lords, set in their old ways, they realized that one can gain from squabbling entities, by temporary allying with the strongest entity (state/alliance/power). Not the weaker side, the stronger side.
So they did just that.
Ally with the stronger power = gain yourself.
Ally with the weaker powers = lose, and game over.
Bye, bye, "Empire".
1
-
@bolivar2153 The Tripple Alliance was a product of Bismarck's Dual Alliance.
Cause and effect.
It was created to protect Germany's only reliable partner (A-H) from Russia.
It was not intended to "draw others in", although it did draw in Italy, which also wanted protection against French ambitions.
No, it was not overpowering.
It was "balanced out" by Russia and France uniting, later followed GB.
Of course, you still don't get it.
No, it wasn't overpowering.
It would have become overpowering if GB had joined in.
Only little problem? London would have loved such a deal, since it would draw off Russia (away from their goal of "going south/India, Dardanelles & ME, and going east Manchuria, clashing with Japan).
Nope.
Not with Wilhelm.
He would not have accepted becoming a punchbag to protect the British Empire (by drawing off Russian forces, potentially clashing in war). He would only have signed a treaty leading to peace, not potentially to war.
It would have to be a deal on eye-level.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 From wiki, your favorite :-)
"The Dual Alliance (German: Doppelte Allianz, Hungarian: Kettős Szövetség) was a defensive alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary, which was created by treaty on October 7th, 1879 as part of Germany's Otto von Bismarck'ssystem of alliances to prevent or limit war.[1] The two powers promised each other support in case of attack by Russia. Also, each state promised benevolent neutrality to the other if one of them was attacked by another European power (generally taken to be France, even more so after the Franco-Russian Allianceof 1894). Bismarck saw the alliance as a way to prevent the isolation of the German Empire, which had just been founded a few years before, and to preserve peace, as Russia would not wage war against both empires. [2] [3]"
It was a defensive pact, and hd nothing to do with France.
1
-
@bolivar2153 " In 1881, Italy lost in the competition with France to establish a colony in Tunis (now Tunisia). To enlist diplomatic support, Italy joined Germany and Austria-Hungary to form the Triple Alliance in 1882, which was the first formal alliance in Europe, the second being the Triple Entente, an informal alliance, formed in 1907.
During World War I, however, Italy did not go to war immediately with its allies but stayed neutral."
It was defensive, aimed as protection against French ambitions.
The two were mutually exclusive and not binding in case of aggression on the part of any alliance partner. See July 1914.
No, France was not threatened by it.
See Bismarck's warmongering, whom Wilhelm fired in 1890.
There was no need for "protection" from either the The Dual, nor the Triple Alliance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Yes, mostly agreed.
Yes, the Tripple Alliance led to France jumping at the opportunity to make an alliance of mutual defense with Russia, even though neither country needed such an alliance. At this stage, under Wilhelm and his naive idea that stretching out an open hand to neighbors would actually be welcomed...
Note: as long as you don't assume malice on the part of Wilhelm's "new course", but rather call it "stupid" or "unrealistic", then we have no differences.
France of course, could also have accepted the open hand and buried their political revanchism** (note, I specifically mention "of the right wing only", not as a general rule), and have accepted a treaty of sorts, burrying the hatchet.
This would also have created an overpowering alliance (Paris-Berlin-Vienna/Budapest) on the continent, potentially drawing others in (Germany could then have used her influence in St. Petersburg to create either non-aggression pact, or similar (something akin to the later Treaty of Bjorko).
**Political Revanchism was a French right-wing policy, as expressed by the poet Victor Hugo:
"From tomorrow, France will have only one thought: to reconstitute its forces, gather its energy, feed its sacred anger, raise its generation...form an army of the whole people, work relentlessly to study the processes and talents of our enemies, to become again the great France, the France of 1972, the France of the idea and the sword...Then suddenly one day it will rise...regain Lorraine, recapture Alsace"
-The French poet Victor Hugo, 1871
Or Britannica:
"All these humiliations caused great anger for French" re. 1871
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Why would I want to change the topic, to something which is your preferred comfort zone? That of "ze evil Jermin, alvays vant tu ruul ze virld", lol.
No.
I prefer to stick to French revanchism, and their right-wing radicals up to 1914, for which there is ample evidence in history books, essays, websites, etc.
Your previous point is moot.
It's like claiming Trumpism died because he's out of power, or Nazism simply died away because Hitler blew his brains out.
It doesn't work like that.
A populist idea stays around even if a prominent figure dies, or goes into exile, or leaves a political post.
1
-
@bolivar2153 Oooooops, I did it again ;-)
I must be Francophobic...
"Some governments and scholars have called the French conquest of Algeria a genocide. Ben Kiernan, an Australian expert on the Cambodian genocide, wrote in Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur on the French conquest of Algeria:[193]
By 1875, the French conquest was complete. The war had killed approximately 825,000 indigenous Algerians since 1830. A long shadow of genocidal hatred persisted, provoking a French author to protest in 1882 that in Algeria, "we hear it repeated every day that we must expel the native and if necessary destroy him." As a French statistical journal urged five years later, "the system of extermination must give way to a policy of penetration."
French Algeria became the prototype for a pattern of French colonial rule which has been described as "quasi-apartheid".[194] Napoleon III oversaw an 1865 decree that allowed Arab and Berber Algerians to request French citizenship—but only if they "renounced their Muslim religion and culture":[195] by 1913, only 1,557 Muslims had been granted French citizenship.[196] Despite periodic attempts at partial reform, the situation of the Code de l'indigénat persisted until the French Fourth Republic, which began in 1946, but although Muslim Algerians were accorded the rights of citizenship, the system of discrimination was maintained in more informal ways.[197] This "internal system of apartheid" met with considerable resistance from the Muslims affected by it, and is cited as one of the causes of the 1954 insurrection.[198]
In response to France's recognition of Armenian Genocide, Turkey accused France of committing genocide against 15% of Algeria's population.[199][200]"
From wiki
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ASIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside systems can "surf in and skim off the profits". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS OR PERSONAL PRIORITIES
European peoples are far to daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive them too, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that they end up thinking everything they do is justified, with "only a few exceptions" in order to seem fair...
Has your nation, or a leader already been "chosen as a favorite son of the West"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have with neighbors aside, or settle them fast, and don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme. Actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples across all borders.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these Western "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU today, for the gain of the outside Western Powers, just like divide and rule sacrificed your grandparents and previous Asian generations during the Era of Imperialism...
------------------------
P.S.: I cannot personally post this message myself too often, since YT autoblocks it as "spam" if I copy and paste it under videos too often. I need YOUR help. In your own interest of safety, please spread this message with regards to the age-old "divide and rule"-strategy of outside (non-Asian) powers. Thank You.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RobertaSirgutz We are surrounded by ideologues, who cannot "see" their own ideology.
ideology
Source: Dictionary
noun
1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of democracy"
Similar: beliefs, ideas, ideals
This "box" called "TV" billions bow down to, has got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives in sinecure comfort...
Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders who appear to them in these "boxes". The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) to kill for, is democracy in colusion with corporatism, and the slogan they chant is "Make the world safe for democracy".
Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders constantly lie and call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One ideal, must be wrong.
When one criticizes an ideologue's ideology, they expose their true nature.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
THE STRATEGY OF THE PROXY
This strategy is as old as empires themselves...
In a systemic analysis the question "Who was right, or who was wrong: Armenius, or the Roman Empire?" becomes irrelevant over time. Why? Because every individual has opinions and priorities according to which right/wrong sides are judged, often incompletely (lack of information), biased, or simply poorly. At the time, the Roman Empire was the rules based order and simply determined right from wrong as a top-down strategy according to own priorities and interests, and steered events using its own GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER. In respect to Arminius, he was an example of the strategy employed by Rome on multiple fronts and regions. The strategy employed proactively was to use a talented individual, or a multitude of individuals combined by an idea (ideology), turned into a useful tool or an instrument of POWER. By granting such entities or individuals a "superior" (sic.) Roman education, wearing a toga, and speaking Latin, no doubt eating pizza, and then releasing such converts onto the "sa7ages/animalis" (sic.) of the rimlands, in some or other official function, in order to employ them as tools of the expanding empire. The institutions of the expanding empire, funded and pulled the strings in the background.
"Do as the Romans do" was not just a saying, but it was an actual strategy of POWER. As the Roman Empire expanded, others were simply expected to adapt, not ONLY "in Rome" as per saying, but everywhere Rome had emplaced itself, and started converting the "sa7ages" to its own norms and standards. Such a strategy might succeed, or it might simply fail spectacularly, as it did in the case of Armenius, who used his knowledge to stand up to the expansion of the Roman Empire, which was trying to use him as a tool to project the empire onto the native tribes where the desired marchroute of expansion lay in the forests of Central Europe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest
"The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest ... was a major battle between Germanic tribes and the Roman Empire that took place at modern Kalkriese from September 8–11, 9 AD, when an alliance of Germanic peoples ambushed Roman legions and their auxiliaries, led by Publius Quinctilius Varus. The alliance was led by Arminius, a Germanic officer of Varus's auxilia. Arminius had acquired Roman citizenship and had received a Roman military education, which enabled him to deceive the Roman commander methodically and anticipate the Roman army's tactical responses."
With regards to the Roman Empire, here is the critical question: What would have happened, had Arminius lost? Answer: The Roman Empire, the outsiders, would have taken one step forward, and the "ratchet" would have locked in...
However, the empire lost. Rome suffered its "Little Big Horn", but could simply come back tomorrow if it pleased, to "teach lessons" to the "injuns" in the outback of Europe. Such setbacks doesn't mean that this strategy of POWER and EXPANSION simply died out with the Roman Empires. Roman strategies lived on. At the time, Rome had the means to try try TRY again and again, because it had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of power. Dispite the defeat, the Roman Empire could still REACH its rivals, but these rivals could not REACH the Roman Empire, at least for the time being. The balance of power, and the technological and organisational superiority still favored the Roman Empire.
All European colonial empires, and the later rising USA, in fact "copy cat"-ed the Roman Empire, in pretty much everything they did. There are a multitude of historical examples of the implementation of this technique of "divide and rule", for example the "converted Japan" (into the ingroup), which served as a tool for the USA/(some) European Imperial powers in the late-19th century. The Roman Empire also did not invent these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies, because these simply morphed as time passed, and like living organisms simply adapted to their environment, the strategists/strategies adapted to every new era. Whether it was the British Empire trying to make "everybody speaking English", or the French trying to turn everybody in their sphere of interest into croissant eaters (lol), the STRATEGY was the same. Take a few talented locals, and morph them as proxies, in order to rule over all the other locals, by the newly-created division. Inject superior beings, as tools to convert the lower ranking original inhabitants, to become the next in the lineup. Morph their culture or way of life, so that these gradually and almost unnoticably, turn into the voluntary tools of the empire in charge, which is thus advancing one step at a time.
Such tools can then be employed in multiple useful manners, for example as soldiers, as taxpayers in various ways, as factories to produce lesser value goods for the empire, as local politicians in the "caboose" (pockets) of the empire, lawyers to implement the foreign empire's new laws, or simply as "barrier zones" (settler colonialism as explained in the below comments section in the essay starting with "In the study of conflict resulting out of the migration of large cultural groups...") ... or simply a systemic "buck catcher" (John Mearsheimer) to act as bait to lure an opposing empire into "extending" itself while battling a rimzone of another empire, of which the core of POWER is protected within the unreachable heartland of the empire who can steer/manage/moderate subsequent events.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What connects the topic of this video, as "compartmentalized history" and 99% ancillary details, with the bigger overall European "picture"?
It is "divide and rule" as THE "systems/strategies" tier of things, as the 1% of history that counts...
Exemplary of a divide and rule/conquer strategy:
Entire regions of human beings are used or set up as proxies, as "walls" or "Limitrophe States" to seperate potential areas which might unite.
Wiki: "In modern history, it was used to refer to provinces that seceded from the Russian Empire at the end of World War I, during the Russian Civil War (1917–1922), thus forming a kind of belt or cordon sanitaire separating Soviet Russia from the rest of Europe during the interwar period.[4]... The nations were then "the cards to change hands in big political games" and included the Baltic peoples, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians."
These nations were, and still are today, simply "tools" for the empires who hold the geographical advantage of power
When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think*** today.
Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer of and over continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers.
These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology).
Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.
The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group. As for Wilson, was he really that naive to think that the large and prominent forces of isolationism would not prevail, and lead to the USA/Washington DC not joining any collectivised system of security for the entire planet?
Was there really no "Plan B" in Washington DC?
Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
The "oh so fine" British Lordships thought they could play divide and rule/conquer games with the world, and in the end British citizens and military men lost bigtime, as at the very end of the Empire, their own Lordships "...ran off with all the f%cking money..." (quote = George Carlin/ reality = tax havens).
The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely.
No, this is not a "yet another conspiracy theory," but elaborated and provided with sufficient evidence, and inductive/deductive reasoning on the other channel/video.
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
**As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the *systems/strategies tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal.
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BexnRN Maybe you understand it wrong, because you have not been given all the facts to draw a conclusion?
Here are some facts you might not have considered.
She voted on a topic which affect the unalienable right to life, liberty, and happiness of others
She clearly stated that her personal opinion affected her choice (at this point, I suggest googling her full statement).
As a representative, she should keep her personal opinions to herself (then nobody would care).
Do you know about the principle of "separation of church and state"?
It wasn't the fact that she abstained (that is her right to do so), but her rubbing it into people's faces that her personal belief in an invisible guy in the sky lured her onto this path.
Here is the counterfactual argument:
Let's turn this around.
Let's take the hypothetically possible situation of a vote about "abortion", and an LGBTQ member abstains, then giving a long-winded sermon about how his/her belief in a certain "god" made him/her do it.
Let's say this sermon includes references to a personal opinion, that all Christians do not live a "true life", because they do not follow the LGBTQ rules.
Would you agree to such statements on personal belief systems ?
Would you call him/her out?
1
-
1
-
"If the USA gets a cold, the rest of the world gets the flu".
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Honestly, what more is there to say? USA: "If I get a cold, the rest of the world suffers worse." This must be the most pathetic acknowledgement of subjection I've read my entire life. If your global neighbor gets an economic "cold" and you can't simply send them a get well soon card and continue with your own life unaffected, you are already in a globalist entanglement. Analysts should stop calling out hypocrisy/lies/double standards and start naming it what it is.
It is a concerted effort of imperialism as practiced since ancient times, called divide and rule.
If a side has a position of power, it does not stand to lose from all the false narratives, deception, and bloodshed it finances around the world. If you have a geographical advantage, you don't make "mistakes" or one isn't simply a "hypocrite" but one actually implements a strategy of power, which are old proven Roman strategies.
These hypocrites face no disadvantages from being a hypocrite.
These liars are far away from the foundations of the disasters they had sown.
When the showdowns come, don't expect to see any of these "narrative shapers" on the front lines.
These hypocrites will send YOU there when the shtf.
This is divide and rule.
One takes over a sphere of influence one slow step at a time. When there is a response, blame the side being encroached upon, and use any action by the other side as excuse for further encroachment or escalation.
Others take the disadvantages, leaving the side in the position of power to sweep in and gain advantages.
"Never argue with fools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ― Mark Twain.
Me: "Never argue with imperialist/globalist tools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with inexperience."
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
POWER. DOESN'T. CARE.
Maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are trapped in a "divide and rule world", and it has been all about PROFITS and CONTROL over the people.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
London went to war on the continent twice, by own admission, to "balance powers" on the continent...
London's standpoint, by own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell = the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
And so the London lords played their "balancing games".
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
Not satire at all.
That's what happened.
How absolutely funny...
The lords gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for their own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire.
Good riddance.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They "hopped on the scale" here, and they "hopped on the scale there", until they finally "hopped" their way into extinction...
Sad.
Good riddance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"God" is the original "divider" using favoratism ("chosen ones"). The technique is to get other men to do the exact opposite as stated in the 10 Commandments, thereby initiating the divide-and-rule technique of gain: deceive men to lie, steal, ki!!, bow down to money and other human beings, idolize wealth, idolize man-made systems, and covet the resources below the feet of others, then bear false witness with regards to what they initiated...
》》》》》》》》》》》》》
The powerful have used the strategy of divide-and-rule for thousands of years to drive a wedge between peoples.
As Johann Wolfgang von Goethe noted a long time ago: "Divide and rule, calls the politician; unite and lead, is the slogan of the wise."
Some politicians and rulers may do this innocently and without thinking, but most know exactly what they are doing with their divisive tongues and their line-drawing divisions. It is their most successful technique that allows them to rule over us by preventing greater unity among people. This allows them to skim off enormous wealth from the gross national product that actually belongs to all people. If it is important to you, forward this message to others. Unite with those you are ordered to hate, according to Goethe because this is the counter strategy of "the wise". We should not allow them to continue winning in the same way for the next thousand years.
Divide-and-rule.
Draw lines, then set the people up against each other.
If there is a problem, blame somebody else.
That is the historical Albion's way.
Incredible how many can be deceived for so long.
Before 1945 it was mainly the British- and French Empires which kept conflicts alive by drawing lines in favor of one group over the other. Other Europeans and later the USA joined in ("collective West"). The lines were often randomly drawn through tribes, through religious- or ethnic groups, to favor either the one, then the other. This created volatile hot spots of ethnic conflicts to use as pretext for intervention and occupation as the moral "rule maker". After 1945 the USA simply took over as "divider-in-chief".
The New Testament is the antithesis of the Old Testament with regards to the message. The ambiguity is exploited to confuse...
1
-
Are you a citizen of the world, and wish to contribute a small share to end the grip the global elites have on the narrative of history?
Are you American, or European? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from the multitude of military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any platform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Why do we know this? Because good people have been voting, and posting, and debating, and using their freedom of speech, and protesting for hundreds of years, but the grip the elites have on the plebs has NEVER changed.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unraveling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a long term lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influential GLOBAL ELITES only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From the intro.
These "lofty ideals" to just "want peace," as stated in such declarations, for the best interests of the locals, as proclaimed by Washington DC, has a rhyming pattern. It is what the USA also claims to wish for the ME.
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interverence at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
§§§footnote
The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
1
-
Feb 17, 2024 — 'If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu,' says US Secretary of State Blinken...
Remember the names of all their "lunches."
Remember all their victims.
As millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy. All around the world, millions of others like Aaron Bushell have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Eastern Europe and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
@sleo3720 Global hegemons set up entire regions of the planet for failure, and then claim that all they want is peace. In case you wish to aid in personally adding that "tiny drop into the Pacific Ocean," in order to pull the rug from underneath these eternal meddlers, then see the above essay. Such a personal strategy, would then indirectly aid those wishing to gain full sovereignty over the own homelands, in the ME, Africa, South America, etc.
Western "interests" in S.E. Asia started during the era of US/European imperialism, of which a great part was started with the own "divide and rule" entries into India and China during the 18th and 19th centuries, and the framework of everything we see today is the inability of empires to let go of previous vassals.
1
-
Brian, in case you read this, and regarding how old and indicative this "technique" you are describing is, and how destructive it is.
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and lose is closer to what happened.
DIVIDE AND CONTROL
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, as a a predictable pattern in case of disruptions to European capitals striving for a European balance of power, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels, and any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain, simply needed to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. Once "divided", there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Some examples regarding the theory in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors would offer a foothold in Europe.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have such consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement after 1895, amongst other less "valuable" suitors, was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below). The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises made"...lol
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...lol.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics sterted with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947. It is alive and well. It has surrounded every aspect of power politics on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Same with the funding of opposing European leaders and states (for example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s).
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else, while "eating popcorn and chips"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Today we see 1914 repeating.
I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, Germans, etc. stating how they would never fight for their current, flawed governments and their flawed politics...
Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy.
It is an insidious manipulative political policy, predicated on hypocrisy and deceit, which gives those who wield it the POWER to DIVIDE all others (currently the USA/collective West). It formed the basis of their power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other.
The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything wrong [sniff, sniff, with the finger pointing elsewhere], nobody ever decided anything bad [sniff, sniff, with the "clean vested" finger pointing elsewhere]. Everybody involved can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, profiteers, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and finger-pointers.
Of course these hundreds of comments by Americans and Canadians mirror the comments made by hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favourite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the leadup to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power (in stages after 1890), in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) and their "buck-catchers", nodded off by the "buck passers" which hold the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains.
Guess who "wins"?
The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar.
Washington DC s strategy is constant, using a geographical position of power.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equilibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to, and gaslighting the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequilibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equilibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The "divide and control/rule/conquer"-world is intact. It is practically as old as modern civilisation, and has never been defeated. Those with true power will do their utmost to ensure that the "divide and rule"-world we live in today, will rule for all times, because the DIVIDERS win, if all others fail.
The divide-and-rule system is a formless headless global system composed of every imaginable race, religion, ethnicity, language group, class, creed as an "ingroup" of power. This ingroup which intends to DIVIDE emergent unity elsewhere, contains all forms of "personal conviction" as "-ism" imaginable, with only a little input from top tiers.
Their aim is division.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc...
Sorry to burst your bubble.
I've got some bad news for all you "never gonna fight"-fanboys.
YOU. WILL. GO.
Capturing the hearts and minds of the (mainly) young, rebellious, and easily-influenced, is a long-term goal of what W.T. Stead set out to do as the "Americanization of the World" (book) on all tiers: ideology, food, industrial products, movies, language, etc. Of course, what he didn't mention back then almost a hundred years ago when this global strategy started, was that this was in effect an old Roman-era strategy of power: to morph the conquered, to become "like Rome." Fill the bellies of the global masses ("Bread") and distract them with entertainment ("Circuses"), and then turn them into the tools of the empire.
Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy.
It gave whites ("Europeans") the basis of the power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other.
The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
Divide-and-rule was the advantage they thought they held 100 and 200 years ago, and they think it still is today.
There can be only 1 "winner". The others are the systemic "cannon fodder" for the gain of the few "buck passers".
Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything, nobody ever decided anything, everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The prefect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and finger-pointers...
Teach your children well...
Of course these hundreds of comments by Americans and Canadians mirror the comments made by hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favourite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the leadup to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power (in stages after 1890), in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) and their "buck-catchers", nodded off by the "buck passers" which hold the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed right through to today.
Whatever...
Guess who "wins"?
The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand).
The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction (MIRVs carrying nukes) as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@machtnichtsseimann We are in agreement that every American has the unalienable right to life, liberty and happiness, and may gather in groups freely, and nobody can stop them from doing so.
Chow should simply have voted or abstained, just like everybody else did.
Everybody else simply voted, and got it over with, and restrained from giving long (the full "sermon" she made on her own opinions is an entire page) accounts of why they chose to vote a certain way.
Nobody cares about her personal life choices, and don't want to be constantly preached to about her personal choices, and that her personal way of life is the only "good, right, and true" way...
Let's turn this around.
Imagine if this was an LGBTQ person telling Chow that she should abide with the LGBTQ way of life (personal choice) and tel her that the LGBTQ way of life is "good, right, and true"?
You see, nobody does that. They respect her choices, and don't preach to her, constantly reminding her that her belief (an invisible man in the sky) is silly...
Honestly, if she had wanted to, there is a time for everything, and she is free to express her opinions in debates, blogs, churches , forums, speeches, and many other places where and when expressing her opinions are welcome...
1
-
@machtnichtsseimann Maybe you understand it wrong, because you have not been given all the facts to draw a conclusion?
Here are some facts you might not have considered.
She voted on a topic which affect the unalienable right to life, liberty, and happiness of others
She clearly stated that her personal opinion affected her choice (at this point, I suggest googling her full statement).
As a representative, she should keep her personal opinions to herself (then nobody would care).
It wasn't the fact that she abstained (that is her right to do so), but her rubbing it into people's faces that her personal belief in an invisible guy in the sky lured her onto this path.
Here is the counterfactual argument:
Let's turn this around.
Let's take the hypothetically possible situation of a vote about "abortion", and an LGBTQ member abstains, then giving a long-winded sermon about how his/her belief in a certain "god" made him/her do it.
Let's say this sermon includes references to a personal opinion, that all Christians do not live a "true life", because they do not follow the LGBTQ rules.
Would you agree to such statements on personal belief systems ?
Would you call him/her out?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pansarkar4883 The question posed to Asians (mainly Chinese and Indians/citizens within these borders) remains the same as during the era of imperialism.
The obfuscators and dividers will use the same techniques in reasoning as they use in politics: they will "hop around" on criteria, causing dissention in debates on the micro level (society), in the same way the power players "hop around" on entire countries/governments/capital cities/key politicians in geopolitics on the macro level...
The technique of "divide and rule"...
Hop over here, hop over there, whatever standpoint brings the own short-term advantage, because THE POWER has the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of not having to suffer consequences from it's own actions.
The question posed to all Asians remains.
Whether they can see that they are in the same positions they were in 200 and 300 years ago.
The dividers come with "promises" which they mostly don't intend keeping, or offer "treaties" (in which these dividers themselves hold the geographical advantage of distance), make all kinds of excuses why the dividers don't keep their promises, or why the dividers don't suffer the same percentage of harmfull effects in times of crisis/war as the "chosen ones". These promises are very enticing to power players, and offer the prospect of glory and achievement to the side the promises are made to...
Anthony Blinken making some Indians FEEL***(see footnote) very proud with repeated offers of NATO membership, just like previous US admins made such promises to the Ukriane, which no doubt made many Ukrainians FEEL very proud, and then the dividers with the geographical advantage, subsequently citing all kinds of "difficulties" why such "pwomises" then cannot be effected in a short timespan.
Meanwhile, exposing the "Ukraine"/proxy to extreme danger as the feet were dragged and dragged and dragged...
Of course, in the game called divide and rule, it is not the fact THAT it is a ridiculous offer, in view of recent events in the Ukraine exposing the danger of such folly, but rather the fact THAT such an offer is repeated. The fact THAT the offer is on the table, already causes mistrust/dissention amongst ASIAN neighbors.
Of course, if India refuses, the divider (of Asia), Washington DC can simply go to China and "promise Taiwan" to Beijing (signed away) in return for a deal, to surround Russia. The potential for "divide and rule" rests on the side with the geographical advantage, as long as the targets for division do not unite, specifically with a comprehensive Asian security agreement.
The question to Asians remains the same.
What are they going to do to create a SINGLE HEGEMONY (alliance) in East Asia, in order to speak with a united voice, against the POWER of division.
BRICS is not enough.
Any other deal or treaty, or even the "UN's" laws and the "rules based order" cannot stand up to the POWER of divide and rule.
It needs a comprehensive security agreement for all of those in the FRACTURE ZONE 4 (stretching from North Pole, via Japan, Taiwan, through Thailand, the Indian subcontinent, towards the Middle East).
If no comprehensive security agreement is achieved, mutually beneficial for all, then simply wait for history to return ("rhyme")...
Or are Indian leaders like... first they came for Russia, but I did not care because I was not Russian. Then they came for China, but I did not care because I was not Chinese, and even saw an advantage for myself (economy) if China got "carved up" and weakened...
Indian leaders: It'll be great, if WE can CONTROL the WATER flowing into China, from Tibet...such tempting "offers" and promises...
"Around 1900" repeating for Tibet.
Finally though, if everything is burning, divided, in quagmire of revolution and war, and Asia the "new Middle East" (as unfolded after the 1882 British invasion, followed up closely by "Sir Lawrance the divider ofArabs"), finger pointing, and harsh language in the neighboring state, then who will speak up for India when the dividers come for you?
DESIRABLE OUTCOME in any divide and rule system: The dividers will subsequently have the "upper hand/higher ground" (leverage) of POWER for all future negotiations with the resulting "statelets".
The secret towards more Indian "power" lies in the continued "power" of its neighbors, not these neighbors' weakness.
* The appeal to emotion
1
-
1
-
@lesdodoclips3915 Poor you....
A five minute attention span internet troll. ROTFL
Unfortunately the London lords did not understand how "balance of power" works.
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Awwww.
Poor Empire...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Divide and rule, weaken and conquer, love and enslave, these are three tenets of politics" ― Bangambiki Habyarimana
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Regardless of the "system of gain" in question, which come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
Divide and rule/conquer creates "favorite sons" (as default "best friends") on the one side, and "scapegoats" on the other as "default rivals/enemies", just like 200 years ago during the age of colonialism...
Divide and rule creates dangerous precedents, and lays potentially self-destructive foundations, and Asia should learn from European mistakes, and never say "never."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HirelSingha WW1 was the USA's hitherto biggest "regime change operation" (Germany) and "debt trap diplomacy" intended to bring down their biggest rivals: the British Empire.
Because here is what they tell you is "history" in thousands and thousands of books and docs: the "German people" or "German leaders" were the ones (fingers pinting) who "forced Wilhelm II into exile, to abdicate" or variations of that.
Here is what they (usually) don't say (lie by omission): That it was the own side which had previously coerced other German leaders into forcing the German government out of office, because that was a condition for negotions to take place in the first place.
1) coerce German leaders to topple the current government
2) leaders topple the current government
3) omit step 1), or pretend it never happened, and "write history" that pleases the own feelings...
4) repeat the story again and again
No amount of finger pointing deflection, personal standpoint, or any other justifications change this causal chain of events though.
"The President would deem himself lacking in candor did he not point out in the frankest possible terms the reason why extraordinary safeguards must be demanded. Significant and important as the constitutional changes seem to be which are spoken of by the German Foreign Secretary in his note of the 20th of October, it does not appear that the principle of a government responsible to the German people has yet been fully worked out or that any guarantees either exist or are in contemplation that the alterations of principle and of practice now partially agreed upon will be permanent. Moreover, it does not appear that the heart of the present difficulty has been reached. It may be that future wars have been brought under the control of the German people, but the present war has not been; and it is with the present war that we are dealing. It is evident that the German people have no means of commanding the acquiescence of the military authorities of the empire in the popular will; that the power of the King of Prussia to control the policy of the empire is unimpaired; that the determining initiative still remains with those who have hitherto been the masters of Germany. Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action, the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the world do not and cannot trust the word of those who have hitherto been the masters of German policy, and to point out once more that in concluding peace and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany."
[Source: International Notes: Diplomatic Notes
Prepared By Allan Westcott, Ph. D., Instructor, U. S. Naval Academy
November 1918 Proceedings Vol. 44/11/189
GERMANY'S EFFORT FOR PEACE
Germany Approaches President Wilson.—The German Chancellor, Prince Maximilian of Baden, on October 6 addressed to President Wilson a message requesting his intervention for peace and the conclusion of an immediate armistice. Austria-Hungary sent a request couched in similar terms.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
History repeats itself in eternal cycles.
Bismarck's "something silly in the Balkans" has morphed into "something silly in the Ukraine".
Of course, Bismarck's quote is in reference to the age-old "contested sphere of influence", and big power ambitions.
At the time it was the Balkans.
Today it is the Black Sea/Ukraine, or simply "shifted east Balkans"-Bismarkian logic.
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
Of course the Ottoman Empire was not Europe's only "sick man" at the time.
The Ottoman Empire was weak, and therefore a favorite on "the European good guys" with their "shopping lists"-mentality.
Of course, the "always on the right side of history"-good guys have one main goal: "carving up" weakness.
That goal is eternal, always searching for weakness.
Of course in the late 19th-century, the Ottomans weren't the only failing empire, desperately trying to hold together their own past accomplishments (previously gained by a mixture of blood and diplomacy).
There were two others.
Of course Spain was the first weak empire on the American Internationalist's own "no more Monroe Doctrine restrictions"-shopping list of suitable weak empires.
The American Century needed divided "weany libruls" to succeed in their quest.
Easily explained empire 101...
Europe's other "sick man" was Austria-Hungary, and Berlin adamantly refused to throw her to the wolves.
Bad bad Berlin ...the "good guys" had an appetite and came with a vengeance.
Dissed girlfriend Russia of course intented to encircle Austria-Hungary, using the "poor people"-argument (aka "Pan Slavism").
And in the respect of "losing favored status" in the good guys' with their eternal games of divide and rule (favoratism):
Russia today.
Not such fun getting encroached upon, as Russia once did to "sick man" Austria-Hungary, and having own security issues ignored by the eternal good guys, right?
Not so great having historical spheres of influence carved up by "ICEBREAKER NATO" paving the way to new profitable EU/PNAC markets, eh?
Shouting "poor me" in "the game" of default good guys/default bad guys, when own interests to dominate and rule over others, using human lives as "tools" not working out anymore?
Why don't your leaders roll out the old "protector of all slavs"-trope again, hmmmm?
Suddenly "Russian power" as a "tool" don't suite the "good guys" anymore, and the own Moscow interests ("security issues": remember that term for a while) get thrown out the back door.
Not so much fun anymore when you are "in the shoes" of others, right?
What happened to those eternal dreams of access to the Med for your navy and the own projection of power (Mahan)? Today Russia doesn't even fully control the Black Sea anymore, and St Petersburg/Moscow geostategic goals/aims have been thrown back over the last 30 years, step by step, back 200 years to the 18th century when it all started.
Not such fun if one isn't on the "default good guy list" anymore...
Today, Moscow's dream of "top down influence in Turkey" (Erdogan/Turkish state access to the Med, janking Turkey out of NATO) is being countered by western economical warfare on the Turkish state. Watch on while the next bloody "bottom up" orange revolution is being set up by "the good guys" with the cash, creating the next "poor people"-argument for the primed/conditioned masses back home in front of their TVs...impervious in regards to "what happened". They just want the feelgood story, so too bad...
Back to "good ol' days" when Imperialist Russia was still "best fwiends":
Of course during the "good ol' days" of "friendly entente Russia", St. Petersburg/Russia could appease Belgrade in their quest of destabilising their neighboring state (Austria-Hungary) in their violent nationalist quest for Nacertanije and carving up Austria-Hungary. St Petersburg could try to misuse known Serb ambitions for Greater Serbia (openly known since 1906) for the own goal of destabilising the Balkans for own geopolitical goals (access to the Med via the Dardanelles), as the "entente good guys" turned a blind eye. Being a "good guy" herself, Russia could set out to misuse Serbs as a "human wall" in lieu of overly obvious direct state influence, to stop a potential alliance between Berlin and the Ottoman Empire becoming viable. The "usefull tool" aka "Entente partner" St Petersburg had the tacid permission and could appease Belgrade and convert the previous Austrian-Hungarian sphere of influence (Serbia) into a "tool" to create a security issue for Austria-Hungary (potential two-front war danger for Vienna/Budapest).
Note how the "good guys" create "poor people"-arguments directed at Moscow today, the same way that the predecessor St. Petersburg created "poor people"-arguments against the object of their desire...Austria-Hungary.
The "regular run" of history is of course that "poor slavs" trapped in an Imperialist Russia (conquered, brutalized and oppressed) is perfectly OK, but Serbs trapped in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire just screams for a "historical adjustment". Go figure...
Anyway.
What happened to these "party times" when the good guys told you you could do no harm?
Doesn't everybody just love becoming encroached upon and encircled?
Let's ask Russians today how they feel about "encroachment/encirclement".
Not so nice, eh?
(Google "hypocrisy")
The same "security issues" St Petersburg once created for Austria-Hungary, suddenly don't sound so "cool" anymore, when the shoe is on the other foot.
Biblical history (and 2,000-year old observations re. human nature), unfolding again, right in front of our eyes.
1
-
The post war "price tag"?
Bombing German cities was counterproductive in 2 main ways.
1) German factories was not what limited German production, but rather the lack of raw materials.
2) after WW2, the new "alpha" Washington DC actually needed both Germany and Japan (the losers) as much as they did GB, France and their empires (the winners). So that by opening up the markets in the US sphere of interest, Germany and Japan quickly recovered, and with a completely modernized economy, quickly overtook GB. There was no alternative, because if not, both would have fallen to communism.
GB, and Empire was seen as a rival by the new alpha of the world, and was "cut down to size".
London no longer had the "leverage" to stand up to Washington DC, and were overpowered. Note, overpowering does not necessarily mean war.
Economic warfare is an old established method.
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
So after WW2 while the British population and economy were being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, were having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, were still on war rations till way into the 1950s, and lost the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...
So the London lords woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best friends forever" had stolen all their markets.
And that's how "leverage" works.
Washington DC: "I've taken over almost all your markets now. What are you going to do about it?"
Sad reality?
There was nothing London could do about it.
Washing DC had more leverage to impose, and they took over from their former colonial masters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@John Brewer
In case you are really interested in history, and especially the role of geopolitics7grand strategy, go to the Kaiser Wilhelm II video of the "History Room" historical channel here on YouTube. Choose the "newest comments first" setting (three little lines at the top of every comments section).
Then read my comments going back about a year, with evidence, links and references to the strategies the USA used to overpower Europe as the dominant world powers. "Europe" (aka "geography") of course includes GB.
It won't take you more than an hour or so.
There, I don't only explain which strategies the USA used to overpower the historical "alphas", the European colonial powers, but I also give details (links/sources/strategies/examples).
London thought they were clever, and that they could gain by dividing everybody else in Europe. "Divide and rule/conquer": note that "rule" has different meanings, of one meaning of the word is simply to "dictate terms" to others, based on an advantage in power.
To make it clear, London never intended "direct rule" over any continental country or adversary, because they were to weak for that, but rather to divide continental powers and thereby gain the advantage of dictating terms in case of negotiations, crisis, or wars.
What "the lords" didn't seem to notice, was that while they were "ruling" over the continent, based on a geographical advantage, somebody else was playing the same game with them.
It was Washington DC, playing "divide and conquer/rule" with Europe, and to the leaders here, GB was simply a part of "Europe" (geographical entity).
All explained, in great detail, in various essays under the Kaiser Wilhelm II documentary (aka "propaganda hit piece").
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century, just like every other POTUS in history. Some might have been more openly imperialistic, but they all served an expansive empire.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Fact is that Trump, or any other previous admin, did not stop this "(systemic) slow march".
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemony.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quiet or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
Just claim hero status for the self, and blame everybody else for everything which goes wrong.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Already predicted. Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
------------------------------------------
Footnote
With Europe set up against Russia, the USA will pivot to Asia to instigate trouble here (already the strategy since Obama).
We are supposed to admire them, but they never give anything of geopolitical/grand strategy value back. Ever. Ratchet principle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Churchill was a terrible strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created *facts*. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
500 000 post-WW2 Allies less, to help out...
1
-
1
-
The biggest misconception about WW1 is that GB joined in to "save poor Belgians".
[britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power]
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
The Germans, became "the rival/enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
Make the strongest country/alliance the rival, and "balance it out".
Let's simplify it down a little.
A toff walks into a pub in August 1914 and says: "Listen up folks, there's going to be a war on the continent soon. You, you, and you!! Go and volunteer for a muddy trench, some PTSD, and to get your head blown off so we can balance those powers..."
Pub:
[sound of chuckles, followed by slurping ale]
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
This is the theory.
According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules.
According to the concept of "meaning of words" all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
Thta includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoid by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the yera 2000 (comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@okaro6595 Unlike Europe, Africa was inhibited from a natural development to establish countries, kingdoms, empires, hegemonic powers, and alliances.
For centuries, from the top down rule stunted a natural development, and alliances between language groups and cultures.
So, yes. Even if there had been no colonialism, there would still have been war and violence, same as there was in Europe for a thousand years.
That would then at some point have resulted in naturally developing states, countries and alliances (unlike the from the top down "lines on the map" drawn up in Europe, which had nothing to do with the cultures of those being carved up).
At some point, countries, trade and development would have take over from war and conquest, same as Europe.
Without hegemonic powers of Europe, Africa would have fought African wars, to establish powers.
Raw materials are not necessarily a cause of chaotic rule.
Australia, The USA, Canada, etc. all have masses of raw materials.
What is missing in these examples is outside powers as hegemonic powers, intent on ruling over the people, using "divide and rule" policies to create hatred and division.
Outside powers lay the foundation for most of the problems Africa still experience today.
Corruption? Often a long-lingering effect of "divide and conquer/rule" when certain tribes were given a favored status (Google "favoritism").
Africa will need a few more generations to grow out of that, and to create a "unity" amongst such different people inside borders which did not develope naturally, or out of own agreement...but luckily I can see first positive changes. Rwanda, Namibia, Botswana, etc. just to name a few.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs.
Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent.
Of course, London already knew this.
That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem:
Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900).
And so "poor little Belgium" was born.
Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"...
France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war.
The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about turn mind-control trick :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first, and the truth had to be bent to fit the policy.
Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals.
It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up.
Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights".
It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Systemic expansion (NATO/US/EU) was not a "mistake," but the continuation of policy.
Only the "target area" was shifted eastward. After 1900, the target area first encircled, then "carved up" and morphed into tools was Central Europe, which at the time it was an alignment/alliance of various ethnicities, languages, and religions (aka Dual Alliance/Triple Alliance).
After 2000 the target area was Russia. An alignment/alliance of various ethnicities, languages, and religions (aka "the state" in Moscow).
The issue? The story tellers got you to cheer the first round of "carving up" called WW1/WW2, which was a single 30-year war....
Now their problem us, how to get you to "cheer" for this round.
1
-
1
-
1
-
This debate is completely pointless waste of time.
Same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
Footnote 1:
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
From Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA® was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised.
"Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 At 25:30 mins "..but how much stronger would Germany have been?'
That is not a rhetorical question.
The objective of the rhetorical question is to place an opposing view under pressure, by asking a question to which would reveal a weakness in the opposing side's logic.
In this case, it not a successful example of rhetoric, because the answer is simple.
German production was limited by resources.
No Bauxite = no aluminum
No Nickel = no armor
No Chrome = no high grade steel
No tungsten = no tools
No rubber = no tires for trucks
No oil = no mobile warfare.
German production would not have been significantly higher, because they did not have the raw materials, or access to those places in the world which had these resources. Anybody who states that 'German production would have been higher', should also follow it up with a full assessment of where the extra raw materials for a higher production would have come from, and more importantly, the oil to fuel the weapons of warfare (tanks, planes, artillery tractors, etc.)
Evidence for the above? WW1. There was no strategic bombing, and the Allies outproduced Germany/Austria-Hungary easily.
German production came to a standstill around early 1945, when advancing ground forces cut off the last remaining connections to the sources of raw materials.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Read the relevant books on the topic.
In a nutshell, the conclusion in these is that the Allied sphere of influence had 2 to 3 times more resources (manpower and raw materials) than the Axis sphere of influence.
Are you trying to contest this conclusion?
Furthermore the fact that most Axis gains suffered from "scorched earth" and destruction by battles (esp. Ukraine, and other Axis territorial gains) after 1941.
By 1943 most if these gains were already (again) contested or were being re-conquered.
By contrast, the overwhelming Allied sphere of interest were never a battlefield, and faaaaaaar outside of tbe reach of any Axis means to inhibit mining, processing, or production, meaning that output could increase multiple fold.
Are you contesting any of these facts?
But hey.
Who am I debating...
"Mr. Two Dimensional Thinking", who simply cannot grasp rather simple statistics, nor draw logical conclusions like the factors which contribute to "production", and the obvious logic is that if even one of these factors is missing/lacking/in short supply, then the entire production process will suffer.
Again.
German production would not have been significantly higher, even if not a single bomb had been aimed at a German city center. Aiming at city centers achieved almost nothing.
The main effect = post war German weakness, and total destruction, aided communism, and US corporatism, thereby leading in the end of "Empire".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The point...
It's what happens if you make the wrong friends.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
1
-
The end goal of all the deception is simple. "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey
All states, also the western style "liberal democracies" and therefore the "good states" have set up non-elected agencies which are outside of the control of any voters, and therefore the collective wisdom and moral values of humanity. The resulting system is that of pyramidal shaped systems of gain in which power and wealth is funnelled to the top. These pyramidal shaped systems of gain called "capitalism" and "politics" have the stated goal of removing opposition, proudly recognized as being a "dirty game".
They are designed by nature to attract fellow human beings with aggressive and even psychopathic tendencies (see footnote).
A large portion of our fellow human beings perceive these as valid traits to achieve the own political and personal priorities. "Might is right", and "end justifies the means" are still axioms of so-called superiority. There is also no reason to believe that any other system which promises power, will not attract similar numbers of bullies and psychopaths.
Reality: "Liberal democracies" and "capitalist gain models" attract psychos like moths to the flame, and most human beings wouldn't be able to spot a psycho even if their lives depended on it. Most human beings living in symbiosis of systems either don't have the skill to recognize bad actors, nor the inclination to remove them since it is tangentially beneficial to own favoured systems, or have become directly entrapped by the "gain models" (pyramids of power/wealth) lead by such bad actors. An example of this would be the case of Oliver North, whose psychopathic dealings were rewarded by "the system" with a highly paid management position (NRA). Based on observation such behaviour is only given a "slap on the wrist" (ineffective punishment), and therefore continues eternally...
--------
Footnote:
Studies have shown that models based on "intent of gain", like capitalism, have rates of people with psychopathic tendencies as high as 20%. Compare that reality to the average for a normal societies, or of non-gain models of cooperation, or mutually agreed upon cooperation, which is around a "1% psycho saturation rate". There is no reason to believe other models of "intent of gain" (like politics) do not have similar high rates of psychos.
These bad actors and deceivers play games with their own inhabitants, telling them things like "all we want is peace", whereas in reality there are elements pushing for eternal war which benefits the systems they represent.
Key words for further research (copy/paste into the preferred search engine):
1) 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
2) Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
3) The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative.
Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with SYSTEMIC EXPANSION, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a "fact"? Because it actually happened. If an actual fair treaty had ended WW1 in 1919, there would not have been a "WW2" and none of that which followed in the wake of an unfair end, would have ever happened.
Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
The marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans.
- Caucasus region/Black Sea (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an "IMbalance of powers" as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing.
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those being encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon.
This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
------------------------------------
Trying to remain neutral in the face of a grand strategy by global players is futile if the players intend to outwit each other by using people as "tools" on their "chessboards." The bigger picture can be distorted, and reality can be manipulated to deceive millions of people. You are an integral part of the games, wanted or not. The history of the encirclement policy of a Eurasian superpower repeated itself after 1990. The intent of the hegemonic power is to "transform" the smaller systems into tools of encirclement (proxies) or "unsinkable aircraft carriers" for its own systemic control or expansion. Then produce the entire story as "protecting freedom/friends/democracy," a "fight for freedom," or some other story that sounds good in Hollywood (a "bread and circuses" strategy for the domestic masses).
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
For the "divider," the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises...
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategist who openly admit this.
The conflagration that took place after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
World War 1 (Seven Years War)
World War 2 (Napoleonic Wars)
World War 3 (Great War/WW1)
World War 4 (World War 2)
World War 5, the next LONG WAR...
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after 1990 with the Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy were not Central Europe/Central Powers, but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces, using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world savior"-status for themselves.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they "feel" better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of the GOLDEN RULE: "Do unto others what you do not want done to you."
Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the "logic" of causality where there is a trench waiting for you...
Fun fact? It does not even matter what you think, or how you respond to this essay, because "how" and "that" are different premises, and the individual brain must be capable of processing such data.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Everyone is "entitled" to own "naive views", which includes you.
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world." Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire. - Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
The fruits of hard consistent unseen effects.
Divide and rule.
1
-
1
-
Alongside other measures, the Treaty of Versailles was a "divide and rule"-strategy, by outside powers, intent on gaining power by dividing Europeans. This simple statement or theory, can be validated by simply investigating the events around the turn of the previous century, and cutting out the distortions created by "dissention" (note: "sowing dissention" in systems, is a means used in the "divide an rule"-technique).
There is a saying stating that if one cannot explain something in a few minutes, that it is probably false.
The divide and rule strategy of and over Europeans, can be explained in three seconds: At Versailles, Europeans were "divided" with a "ruling".
Of course, no superficially observed series of events can be concluded to be a non-falsifiable theory, if there is not a substantial amount of evidence to corroborate it, and if the reader wishes, the comments section under the "His--tory Ro..om " educational channel on "Wilhelm II" (documentary), has more than 100 essays going back more than 4 years, to provide more than ample evidence for the theory of how Europeans were 1) once "divided and ruled" over (after around 1900), and 2) are still being divided and ruled over (around the year 2000), by outside powers.
"The rich ruling class has used tribalism, a primitive caveman instinct, to their advantage since the beginning of time. They use it to divide and conquer us. They drive wedges between us peasants and make us fight each other, so we won’t rise up against our rulers and fight them." ― Oliver Markus Malloy
"Divide and rule, weaken and conquer, love and enslave, these are three tenets of politics" ― Bangambiki Habyarimana
1
-
History repeats itself in eternal cycles.
Bismarck's "something silly in the Balkans" has morphed into "something silly in the Ukraine".
Of course, Bismarck's quote is in reference to the age-old "contested sphere of influence", and big power ambitions.
At the time it was the Balkans.
Today it is the Black Sea/Ukraine, or simply "shifted east Balkans"-Bismarkian logic.
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
Of course the Ottoman Empire was not Europe's only "sick man" at the time.
The Ottoman Empire was weak, and therefore a favorite on "the European good guys" with their "shopping lists"-mentality.
Of course, the "always on the right side of history"-good guys have one main goal: "carving up" weakness.
That goal is eternal, always searching for weakness.
Of course in the late 19th-century, the Ottomans weren't the only failing empire, desperately trying to hold together their own past accomplishments (previously gained by a mixture of blood and diplomacy).
There were two others.
Of course Spain was the first weak empire on the American Internationalist's own "no more Monroe Doctrine restrictions"-shopping list of suitable weak empires.
The American Century needed divided "weany libruls" to succeed in their quest.
Easily explained empire 101...
Europe's other "sick man" was Austria-Hungary, and Berlin adamantly refused to throw her to the wolves.
Bad bad Berlin ...the "good guys" had an appetite and came with a vengeance.
Dissed girlfriend Russia of course intented to encircle Austria-Hungary, using the "poor people"-argument (aka "Pan Slavism").
And in the respect of "losing favored status" in the good guys' with their eternal games of divide and rule (favoratism):
Russia today.
Not such fun getting encroached upon, as Russia once did to "sick man" Austria-Hungary, and having own security issues ignored by the eternal good guys, right?
Not so great having historical spheres of influence carved up by "ICEBREAKER NATO" paving the way to new profitable EU/PNAC markets, eh?
Shouting "poor me" in "the game" of default good guys/default bad guys, when own interests to dominate and rule over others, using human lives as "tools" not working out anymore?
Why don't your leaders roll out the old "protector of all slavs"-trope again, hmmmm?
Suddenly "Russian power" as a "tool" don't suite the "good guys" anymore, and the own Moscow interests ("security issues": remember that term for a while) get thrown out the back door.
Not so much fun anymore when you are "in the shoes" of others, right?
What happened to those eternal dreams of access to the Med for your navy and the own projection of power (Mahan)? Today Russia doesn't even fully control the Black Sea anymore, and St Petersburg/Moscow geostategic goals/aims have been thrown back over the last 30 years, step by step, back 200 years to the 18th century when it all started.
Not such fun if one isn't on the "default good guy list" anymore...
Today, Moscow's dream of "top down influence in Turkey" (Erdogan/Turkish state access to the Med, janking Turkey out of NATO) is being countered by western economical warfare on the Turkish state. Watch on while the next bloody "bottom up" orange revolution is being set up by "the good guys" with the cash, creating the next "poor people"-argument for the primed/conditioned masses back home in front of their TVs...impervious in regards to "what happened". They just want the feelgood story, so too bad...
Back to "good ol' days" when Imperialist Russia was still "best fwiends":
Of course during the "good ol' days" of "friendly entente Russia", St. Petersburg/Russia could appease Belgrade in their quest of destabilising their neighboring state (Austria-Hungary) in their violent nationalist quest for Nacertanije and carving up Austria-Hungary. St Petersburg could try to misuse known Serb ambitions for Greater Serbia (openly known since 1906) for the own goal of destabilising the Balkans for own geopolitical goals (access to the Med via the Dardanelles), as the "entente good guys" turned a blind eye. Being a "good guy" herself, Russia could set out to misuse Serbs as a "human wall" in lieu of overly obvious direct state influence, to stop a potential alliance between Berlin and the Ottoman Empire becoming viable. The "usefull tool" aka "Entente partner" St Petersburg had the tacid permission and could appease Belgrade and convert the previous Austrian-Hungarian sphere of influence (Serbia) into a "tool" to create a security issue for Austria-Hungary (potential two-front war danger for Vienna/Budapest).
Note how the "good guys" create "poor people"-arguments directed at Moscow today, the same way that the predecessor St. Petersburg created "poor people"-arguments against the object of their desire...Austria-Hungary.
The "regular run" of history is of course that "poor slavs" trapped in an Imperialist Russia (conquered, brutalized and oppressed) is perfectly OK, but Serbs trapped in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire just screams for a "historical adjustment". Go figure...
Anyway.
What happened to these "party times" when the good guys told you you could do no harm?
Doesn't everybody just love becoming encroached upon and encircled?
Let's ask Russians today how they feel about "encroachment/encirclement".
Not so nice, eh?
(Google "hypocrisy")
The same "security issues" St Petersburg once created for Austria-Hungary, suddenly don't sound so "cool" anymore, when the shoe is on the other foot.
Biblical history (and 2,000-year old observations re. human nature), unfolding again, right in front of our eyes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 There is no way to find out.
The Gestapo carried out "spying operations" (on the streets, subways, etc.) incognito ever since the Nazis settled their power.
Hitler always feared an overthrow in the form of a revolution, and therefore had to spy on his own people.
Obviously, if the Gestapo carried out questionnaires or sat on a train listening to citizens, what do you think these people would say? (true in any oppressive dictatorship)
No objective analysis has ever been done with this information.
Like I said. As long as there was no sign of a revolution, the Nazis were just going to listen in.
One speaker (Grey) even mentions how the bombing led to closer ties/trust between Germans and their government, because the bombing gave them no choice.
See "counter productive".
The intention was to drive a wedge, and the opposite was achieved. Of course the government agencies poured all kinds of generocity on those bombed (food/clothing/housing), so that the "morale bombing" totally backfired.
A predictable outcome.
What happened in London/Coventry/Liverpool/etc.?
Did the citizens rise against their leadership?
Of course not.
The exact opposite happened.
Unlike "hunger" (WW1), the attempte to drive a wedge failed misirably, and the Nazis jumped at the opportunity of gaining some brownie points.
German voting records (or traditional voting patterns per city/region) can be googled.
There is a ton of information re. this on the internet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Placid_Cat All dichotomies confuse: Is the world "unipolar" or "multipolar"?
The reality? It does not matter, for if one has power. one can use the divide-and-rule strategy of power, regardless of any other realities.
The powerful have used the strategy of divide-and-rule for thousands of years to drive a wedge between peoples.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe noted back then: "Divide and rule, calls the politician; unite and lead, is the slogan of the wise."
Some politicians and rulers may do this innocently and without thinking, but most know exactly what they are doing with their divisive tongues and their line-drawing divisions. It is their most successful technique that allows them to rule over us by preventing greater unity among people. This allows them to skim off enormous wealth from the gross national product that actually belongs to all people. If it is important to you, forward this message to others. Unite with those you are ordered to hate, according to Goethe because this is the counter strategy of "the wise". We should not allow them to continue winning in the same way for the next thousand years.
Divide-and-rule.
Draw lines, then set the people up against each other.
If there is a problem, blame somebody else.
That is the historical Albion's way.
Incredible how many can be deceived for so long.
They keep conflicts alive by drawing lines in favor of one group over the other. The lines were often randomly drawn through tribes, through religious- or ethnic groups, to favor either the one, then the other. This created volatile hot spots of ethnic conflicts to use as pretext for intervention and occupation as the moral "rule maker".
------------------------------------------------------
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Morals are, according to definition, standards of behaviour.
No, it wasn't ok to have slaves 200 or 300 years ago, or beat your wife, or whatever, because the Bible says to "do onto others, as you wish to be done onto", setting the moral standard for Christians.
If I remember correctly, they were reading the same Bible 200 or 300 years ago. The message in the Bible was the same, and the behaviour of slave traders, owners, or the markets selling them like animals was therefore immoral.
The question "Was it moral?" doesn't change, because a few hundred years passed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politicians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles (see my comment 4 weeks ago).
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct date on the timeline which is March 1939, when they did nothing.
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not in my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies. How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets have they. Me want some...me take some."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen positive relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Curb the darker aspects which create internal division.
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Be principled, or become a tool.
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up.
Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marcusmcewen9654 The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region. In other word, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yup.
It's an age-old technique, called "the ally/proxy/favorite", all "extensions" of the own system.
"The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: WRONG.
It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid ze divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
The Big Lie is the power of the divide and rule/conquer technique, and even the Nazis hid their "Big Lie"-conspiracy theory, behind an even bigger lie: how they intended to play this game until they got into power after their failed coup d'etat.
The "Big Lie" is not a myth but a misrepresentation of the truth.
It is the power of "divide and rule/conquer" which lurks behind every strategy they follow, in order to gain.
No human being has ever come up with a means to overcome this age-old technique of ruling over billions of people, because it is predicated on human nature itself, which is enduring.
No power player wants to become associated with authoritarian, or "colonial" tactics and strategies, or Nazis, so they cannot use it as a political means to attack rivals: it will immediately result in blowback.
The "Big Lie" conspiracy masked the divide and rule technique.
No power player can ever accuse any other power player of using it, since it will immediately backfire: the accusation of using the technique themselves, which in most cases of intent of gain will even apply***. The disguise usually comes in the form of scapegoating or another form of appeal to the emotion of listeners, or addressing and fortifying their already existing biases.
"Scapegoating" = an appeal to lower emotions of potential supporters.
In our divided societies, appealing to these biases might always be that tiny little "weight" that tilts the scale in very tightly run political elections.
Most power players read books on strategy, with the intention of using these strategies for personal gain, not because they wish to benefit you (the individual).
There is always the urge to defend own favored systems, when one reads perceived "attacks" on these favored systems or own heroes, and the beloved own "-isms", which also reveal standard procedures, meaning the "attacker" soon falls into predetermined pathways to deflect and obfuscate from the core theory...
Footnotes:
**only applies in competitive "intent of gain" systems, *not benevolent forms of reciprocal human interaction which are 100% fair...
1
-
"1911 Encyclopedia Britannica; Balance of Power;
The Nuttall Encyclopedia; Balance of Power ;
A phrase in international law for such a "just equilibrium" between the members of the family of nations as should. prevent any one of them from becoming sufficiently strong to enforce its will upon the rest. The principle involved in this, as Hume pointed out in his Essay on the Balance of Power…"
https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/Technology-of-war-in-1914
[Britannica]
In principle, not a bad thing.
Unfortunately, by 1914 the 2 "blocks" of alliance partners had completely skewed the old system of "balancing" the power of countries.
The two resulting blocks were fairly equally balanced in terms of GDP, military forces, education of the population, industrial might, technology, etc.
But concerning other criteria re. "power", like a strategic advantage, access to raw materials, population, global reach, etc. the Tripple Alliance was becoming rapidly "outbalanced" by the Tripple Entente, and intended to correct this resulting "imbalance".
European leaders had long foreseen the potential disaster of a "great war" scenario in times of modern warfare. Improvements in technology, meant ever more devastating weapons. Industrialization, the potential for all encompassing "total wars".
From Moltke the Elder in the mid-19th century [The days are gone by when, for dynastical ends, small armies of professional soldiers went to war to conquer a city, or a province, and then sought winter quarters or made peace. The wars of the present day call whole nations to arms.... The entire financial resources of the State are appropriated to military purposes...] to Churchill in 1901 [ We must not regard war with a modern Power as a kind of game….A European war cannot be anything but a cruel, heartrending struggle (ending) in the ruin of the vanquished and the scarcely less fatal commercial dislocation and exhaustion of the conquerors. —1901, 13 May, House of Commons]
The inflexibility of the alliance system would turn out to be the end of Europe.
According to common practice "states can pursue a policy of balance of power in two ways: by increasing their own power, as when engaging in an armaments race or in the competitive acquisition of territory; or by adding to their own power that of other states, as when embarking upon a policy of alliances." [Britannica]
Because none of the other powers were willing to address the increasing imbalance (as the years passed), Germany/Austria-Hungary set upon a path of increasing both their "power" as well as a more favorable strategic position, by allying with the Ottoman Empire.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93German_alliance
1
-
Why does Israel hate the UN?
In 1919, the founding nations of the LoN were predominantly...hint, hint..."Christian white colonial powers", with a few blacks, Bhuddists, and libruls thrown in to appease the left..
Just after WW2, the UN was faced with the problem of a colonial power which had recently cause a massive crisis (GB), being completely broke, and putting its tail between its legs and running from the sh*tstorm it had created by promising the same land to two peoples (independence for Arabs, and massive white immigration of European Jews to the Levant was a contradiction).
Today, the UN is a reflection of the colorful mixture of humanity, and grants each a voice. It is democratic (well, sorta), includes ALL peoples, and no longer dominated by right-wing views, and is therefore hated by those who wish for "the good ol' days" of white power..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why is anybody surprised about the current global mess, accompanied by ample finger pointing? The USA and the entire collective West is a divide-and-rule Mecca for the ultra-rich who practice it.
"As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully constrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters."
In case anybody living in the present, actually thinks this is such a familiar-sounding reality of the present, I suggest searching the origin of this quote (see footnote). Today, you (reading this) are watching the full glory of aggregated fiat capital, creating little minions for the steering, managing, moderating, empire, and you are already a minion/buck catcher, unless to belong to a very small, select circle.
-------------------
Footnote:
Grover Cleveland (POTUS), State of the Union, 1885
Granted, not as famous as Eisenhower with his warning of the Military Industrial Complex, and therefore on par with Adam's warning about the USA becoming the "dictatress of the world", one thing all these warnings have in common: They were all of them, ignored...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Cuban Missle Crisis and WW1.
Of course the average history fan will ask themself the question "What does the Cuban Missle Crisis have to do with WW1?".
The answer to that rhetoric: Everything, because even when "only studying history", we are also (indirectly) studying human nature.
And human nature, unlike human behaviour, is a constant. It does not change.
Human behaviour of course changes (rules, laws, society, etc.).
Whether ancient history or modern times: human nature remains the constant factor.
The key lessons when comparing the two, is how a willingness to compromise averted the end of humanity in 1962 (or MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction).
The average history fan's take on the Cuban Missle Crisis is somewhat along the lines of "Nasty Russia wanted to rule the world :-) and threatened the good guys USA but the good guys stayed strong and won in the end because we were better people and ya'll know the good guys always win", or something simplistic like that...LOL
Far from it.
To those who dig a little deeper and discover all the facts, and are particularly not confused by history books/docs pinning a flag on a timeline, a completely different picture arises.
It was actually the "good guys" who "started it", by placing own nuclear missles in Turkey, on the Russian doorstep, thereby creating a security issue for the UdSSR which did not exist in return for "the good guys", who initiated/triggered//started the crisis. The Russians responded, by using the age-old principle of "What does it feel like?" (or the Biblical "put yourself in their shoes"), and thereby started placing their own missles in Cuba, on the US doorstep.
Irrelevant of personal "feelings" (sympathies, opinions, patriotism, "my country, right or wrong", slogan chanting, whatever): reality was created by "causality", not the opinions or feelings of individuals.
The above has a parallel re. the geopolitical encirclement/military danger of a two-front war of Germany/Austria-Hungary. First by Russia and France of Germany, then followed by Russia-France-GB in re. to mostly Germany. Then followed by Russia-Serbia attempting to do the same with Austria-Hungary aka "two front war" danger for Austria-Hungary. Of course the 3rd Balkan War which Vienna started in July 1914 was in response to a Serbian provocation in June 1914, and was a preventive war (see definition). It was started by Austria-Hungary, to avoid/prevent a potentially possible alliance between Russia and Serbia.
At some point one oversteps a line re. the security issues of another state/alliance, and one must first acknowledge it, then work towards a compromise.
So what did the "new alpha" after WW2 (Washington DC), do differently during the Cuban Missle Crisis (1962), than the powers did in the leadup to WW1?
And in particular the "leader of the world" which was unmistakably still London/Empire (early-20th century).
1) Washington DC obviously first acknowledged that Russia stood "in different shoes" (biblical logic), and had a security issue created by US actions
2) after the first step of acknowledgement, a compromise was made
So here is what the noisy "victory"-chanters forget to mention: The USA withdrew their missles from Turkey, and in return Russia withdrew theirs from Cuba.
*Both countries' security issues were (within the limits set by the status quo at time aka "Cold War") acknowledged, and then a compromise was made.
Obviously there were differences. There was obviously a difference between a short-term crisis (2 weeks in 1962) and long-term geopolitical changes (say, the 30 years leading up to WW1). Also technology, geography, political systems, etc. between the two events, so there is no need to point these out.
The factor of human nature was the constant factor.
Also of course the knowledge on the part of both superpowers that screwing it up in 1962 could never lead to a "win" for anybody, because MAD would have been kinda final for all...
The "lesson to be learnt" from WW1 was obviously at least partly learnt by the new alpha after WW2.
"Put yourself in their shoes", and compromise.
Obviously there is no need to make false compromises (google "argumentum ad temporantium" or a false/shifted "middle ground").
For example in re. to the leadup to WW2. In the leadup to WW2 and a shoutout to all the "Hitler fanboys": Germany didn't have these geopolitical encirclement/military 2-front war security issues, because the caring good guys (LOL) took care of this "German angst" at Versailles.
"Apples and oranges"-comparisons are invalid).
The leadup to WW1 was a clear-cut case of ignoring the security issues faced by the Dual-Alliance. The Triple Entente powers were willing to push and push until something snapped. Unlike the "new alpha" after WW2, there was an unwillingness by the members of the Tripple Entente to deal with justifiable objections.
In that regard, lets see what happens with Chy-naaah and Russia today, in a similar big picture reality.
1
-
1
-
October/November 1918.
Why did Wilhelm "have to go"...
In politics, we are hardly ever given the real reasons why things happen, or why policy decisions are implemented.
Of course yesterday's politics, is today's history...
The truth behind "why Wilhelm had to go" is there for all to see, and has been written about in great detail in the past.
It had little to do with WW1, or Wilhelm's "personality disorder" (lol).
As Tolkien states, long forgotten history became legend. Legend turned to myth. And after 100 years the reality of what happened passed out of all knowledge.
Re. why Wilhelm had to go, has simply been forgotten.
The reality of "what happened" is that soon after his ascent to power (around the time "leaning East" Bismarck took his hat), Wilhelm wanted to unite Europe.
In his own frustrated later words "with or without GB".
That can be read about in great detail and with sources in largely forgotton works: for example in the first few pages of THE ANGLO-GERMAN ALLIANCE NEGOTIATIONS: MISSED OPPORTUNITY OR MYTH by H.W. Koch (free to read online after registration at JSTOR) or several other free pdf theses on the topic.
Unfortunately most of these scholarly works mostly deal with how it turned out and not the initial intention by Berlin of such a potentially possible European alliance system with an Anglo-German Alliance at its core.
Only a few historians correctly point out how such an alliance system was never desired by key individual European players, especially in London, and therefore "wishful thinking" from the outset. See the "history" of the apparently "poor dissed London lords" who apparently "really really wanted to become Berlin's BFFs" (sic.), but Berlin had insiduous "world conquering dreams".
According to "Die Legende von der Verschmähten englischen Freundschaft 1898 to 1901" (1929) by Gerhard Ritter, the historian makes clear that it was London which never wanted such an alliance. The talks about a Eurpean alliance system did not "start" (as often stated) "in 1898", but much sooner. Bismarck had already sent the "feelers" much earlier, and Wilhelm intended to follow up on these (see the successful good start with the Helgoland-Zansibar Treaty as an act of good faith by both sides).
As it turned out "with GB" was not possible because London wanted "Splendid Isolation" as the elevated policy standpoint of a few influencial lords.
The "few" with veto powers would have used these powers to torpedo any attempt within the circle of London lords for any form of European unity, either "with or without GB".
To Quote: "Thirdly — but more contentiously — his veto of an Anglo-German alliance, as late as 1901, has been blamed, notably by Julian Amery in his biography of Joseph Chamberlain, as leading to the First World War and, by implication, to all the horrors which came after." (Amery 1969, p.158: edit for clarification, "third" in a list of the historian's list of key failures re. the Chamberlain Sr. years).
Just to clarify further. The same British lord who "oh-so honestly" set out try to create an Anglo-German Alliance in 1898 together with Lord Balfour, admitted to vetoing it if there was ever a chance of a version not to the lords' liking under discussion. Same as today, a few key figures can always veto any idea put forward, advocated on, or even decided on by majority concensus, and it did not matter how good such an idea (political proposition) is today, or was at the time.
It was GB which chose "against".
In 1896, Wilhelm II therefore "turned East" and personally handed the Russian Tzar a memorandum named "On the need to form a politico-merchantile union of European states against the USA".
In it, Wilhelm expressed his desire to turn Europe ("with or without GB", but still preferably including GB) into a united power which could stand up against the rapidly rising USA.
Hmmmmmmm....interesting.
"Against the USA" (sic.), and in 1918 Washington DC insisted on exactly this man to abdicate...
In 1918, Wilson representing the rapidly rising power USA, demanded that Wilhelm II should leave office in order for any peace talks to commence.
Of course, the "dividers" intent on "dividing" European power into manageable bits, sat in Washington DC. With their own entry into WW1, these strategists had got their "foot in the door" of European matters: their willing "little helpers" in London and Paris thereby signed the own death warrants for their own empires.
Because if you are a dragon (an imperialist power with an "empire"), don't cuddle up to a dragon slayer (a nation whose very foundation was anti-imperialism).
Wilhelm II had to go, because he wanted a united Europe, to mirror what was happening on the other side of the Atlantic.
It wasn't the "flamboyent Weltpolitic" or "nasty rhetoric" or "wanting to rule the world" (or any of the often overstated "historical details") which made Wilhelm unpopular with the other powers on the fringes of the European continent, but his desire to unite Europe in order to speak with a united voice against the rising USA. Germany's neighbors were unwilling to accept Berlin's "price tag" for such a "united Europe": more influence in the world (and a few more colonies) for Berlin.
Of course, everything has a "price tag".
Even the USA's "help" to "win WW1" had a price tag...
To add to the above.
Our history is often overburdened with judgements, rather than analyses.
A certain standpoint of "my government was better than your government"-attitude plays a large role.
The forms of governments which evolved (timeline) were a result of their geographical locations.
(see also below comment re. "divide and rule").0
1
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They morphed strong monarchies ("princes") into weak democracies ("mercenaries"), then used entire regions as tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up to Versailles. The USA could afford to wait.
Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
There are examples of the "division of Europe" on several levels and an advantage for the "alpha". These examples are not isolated cases, but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of the "others", because unity = strength).
Germany must now shrink in order to adapt to the "new world", and limited resources must go elsewhere...
From now on, the new direct encirclers of Russia in the west (Poland, Ukraine, etc.) must grow , and will be supported as "proxies" for the alpha. The "carrot" of power is there today ("Three Seas Initiative"), just like 1918 (see "Intermarium Eastern Europe"). It's time for the "Polish Wirtschaftswunder"-years...
Poland and other "alliances of willing" will be favored..
Favored?
Where have I heard that one before?
What is the policy?
Japan as "an encircler" is still needed (China/Russia).
German growth will take a back seat.
The EU's core (west of Europe) must suffocate, and others further east must rise in power...
What a coincidence that the young/vibrant societies further east are also "more willing to fight" than the older populations in the domographically weakening Western Europe/USA (search for: "research gate dot net willingness-to-fight polls", or alternatively: "gallup international-global-survey-shows-three-in-five-willing-to-fight-for-their-country").
What the survey reveals is that while in Western Europe it is low (around 20%), but increases the younger, poorer, and more religious a society becomes.
Weird coincidence, I'm sure.
Too bad if millions like the unity, peace and prosperity the EU has resulted in.
The EU with its "core power" in Western Europe, has outlasted its usefullness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
yankeetrader
The narrative in this video is entirely beside the point. Allow me to show how, with a similar event. Not exact, because "history only rhymes", but close enough to explain how diplomacy works.
Drax went to Moscow in 1939 to "talk", not "negotiate".
According to the narrative Stalin (whose snowflake feelings got upset about not receiving an equal "Munich" treatment, with the highest level London diplomat jetting off to see Hitler) felt dissed, just like the French did when a "mere captain" arrived to discuss the future of their own empire (at least, the possessions in N.Africa).
Apparrently Stalin understood quite well what sending a lower prominence delegation meant.
Also what power of negotiation means.
Neither Drax nor Holland had these powers, which is why they were sent off with matters unaccomplished.
The French Navy was going nowhere without political assurances. Say, from the USA to step in to safeguard Algeria with own ships, and protection for the French citizens here (at the time, Algeria was a part of France proper) from the threat of invasion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@northwestgardener5076 You mean "made a good life" in Guatemala?
The Guatemala being destroyed by your tax dollars?
There has been a so-called War on Drugs going on for the last 50 years or so, costing the US taxpayer 50 billion dollars every year.
Don't you even know about this low key "war" going on?
Report by Davie Doward
Call off war on drugs, leader of Guatemala tells the west
Otto Pérez Molina says regulated narcotics market must be introduced to forestall threat to democracy from drug cartels.
Sat 19 Jan 2013 21.03 GMT
First published on Sat 19 Jan 2013
"The west's "war on drugs" has failed and continuing with prohibition will only cost more lives, the Guatemalan president, Otto Pérez Molina, declares in an interview in the Observer.
In a further sign that the global consensus on drugs is fragmenting, Pérez Molina will use a debate at this week's Davos forum in Switzerland to attack the international community for its support for prohibition, and to call for a regulated narcotics market.
"I believe western countries fail to understand the reality that countries such as Guatemala and those of Central America have to live in," said Pérez Molina. "There has been plenty of talk, but no effective response. I believe, ultimately, that this is due to a lack of understanding on the part of western countries."
Don't you even know any of this?
What "good life" bs are you writing?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
An "impossible" peace?
More like "how can the winners sweep their guilt for the war under the carpet"...
France for example:
Unbeknownst to Berlin/Vienna, there was another "blank cheque" issued during the state visit of a French delegation to St Petersburg.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Poincar%C3%A9
(See: July Crisis)
Excerpts:
"When Poincaré arrived in St. Petersburg on 20 July, the Russians told him by 21 July of the Austrian ultimatum and German support for Austria.[22] Although Prime Minister Viviani was supposed to be in charge of French foreign policy, Poincaré promised the Tsar unconditional French military backing for Russia against Austria-Hungary and Germany.[23] In his discussions with Nicholas II, Poincaré talked openly of winning an eventual war, not avoiding one.[19] Later, he attempted to hide his role in the outbreak of military conflict and denied having promised Russia anything.[19]"
" Poincaré arrived back in Paris on 29 July and at 7 am on 30 July, with Poincaré's full approval, Viviani sent a telegram to Nicholas affirming that: in the precautionary measures and defensive measures to which Russia believes herself obliged to resort, she should not immediately proceed to any measure which might offer Germany a pretext for a total or partial mobilization of her forces.[24]"
"In his diary entry for the day, Poincaré wrote that the purpose of the message was not to prevent war from breaking out but to deny Germany a pretext and thereby obtain British support for the Franco-Russian alliance.[24] He approved of Russian mobilization.[24] "
The intention of the French "blank cheque" was clearly to expand the crisis, or the intended (at the time, by Vienna) "limited war" with limited impact in northern Serbia.
Furthermore, also to drag GB in on their side.
Smart, and admirable, according to some...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces/wealth when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
>>>
The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
>>>
The people of the Americas, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people into "ingroups". In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the USA's power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS. Eden was a status quo divided by lies and deceit. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the two Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly are two cheeks of the same gold-plated hind which sets out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, is the mirror of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion.
The Albion 2.0 took over...
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets and becomes successful it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances.
The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yup.
100%
FAUX liberal empires, who can read past all statements made by their leaders, and which were actually implemented reveal their own true nature.
To gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves (and then stand in their "shiny houses on hills" claiming everybody else is either jealous or greedy). If not by direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony. Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources. That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only IR (international Relations). Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
1
-
From the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that "all other systems are bad/evil", want to "rule the world" or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system of government is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and their true human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote1
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc...
Sorry to burst your bubble.
I've got some bad news for all you "never gonna fight"-fanboys.
YOU. WILL. GO.
Capturing the hearts and minds of the (mainly) young, rebellious, and easily-influenced, is a long-term goal of what W.T. Stead set out to do as the "Americanization of the World" (book) on all tiers: ideology, food, industrial products, movies, language, etc. Of course, what he didn't mention back then almost a hundred years ago when this global strategy started, was that this was in effect an old Roman-era strategy of power: to morph the conquered, to become "like Rome." Fill the bellies of the global masses ("Bread") and distract them with entertainment ("Circuses"), and then turn them into the tools of the empire.
Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy.
It gave whites ("Europeans") the basis of the power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other.
The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
Divide-and-rule was the advantage they thought they held 100 and 200 years ago, and they think it still is today.
There can be only 1 "winner". The others are the systemic "cannon fodder" for the gain of the few "buck passers".
Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything, nobody ever decided anything, everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The prefect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and finger-pointers...
Teach your children well...
Of course these hundreds of comments by Americans and Canadians mirror the comments made by hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favourite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the leadup to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power (in stages after 1890), in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) and their "buck-catchers", nodded off by the "buck passers" which hold the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed right through to today.
Whatever...
Guess who "wins"?
The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand).
The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction (MIRVs carrying nukes) as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's a lot older than 2014.
It goes all the way back to the 18th century.
Throughout modern history, the intention of the "rimlands" of Europe, was to avoid the emergence of a single "power" on the continent of Europe, later Eurasia.
It is really as simple as that.
It doesn't matter what any individual thinks any event on the timeline, incl. all crises and wars, were all about, because whichever conclusion any individual reaches is wrong, misconstrued, or whatever: the reality is that nobody in a true position of POWER will step forward and correct you, until you reach a position of true power yourself.
They will not correct you as an individual, nor as a part of a collective lower tiered entity, no matter how many millions of individuals make up such a collective lower tiered entity.
The strategy of POWER employed here is called "lying by omitting," and point the finger everywhere else...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why is anybody surprised about the current global mess, accompanied by ample finger pointing? The USA is a divide-and-rule Mecca for the ultra-rich who practice it.
"As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully constrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters."
In case anybody living in the present, actually thinks this is such a familiar-sounding reality of the present, I suggest searching the origin of this quote (see footnote). Today, you (reading this) are watching the full glory of aggregated fiat capital, creating little minions for the steering, managing, moderating, empire, and you are already a minion/buck catcher, unless to belong to a very small, select circle.
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided people are easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy. Lies (incl. "lying by omitting") and deceit are an integral part of the strategy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Not every single individual, group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors. The people's share in divide-and-rule working is quite simple: unfortunately too many people would rather believe a lie that sounds nice, than the truth which sounds even slightly negative.
-------------------
Footnote:
Grover Cleveland (POTUS), State of the Union, 1885
Granted, not as famous as Eisenhower with his warning of the Military Industrial Complex, and therefore on par with Adams warning about the USA becoming the "dictatress of the world", one thing all these warnings have in common: They were all of them, ignored...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This debate is completely pointless waste of time.
Same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
Footnote 1:
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
From Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA® was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised.
"Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dragonblazzer969 Here's what your "America" has been up to...
"Since World War II, during a supposed golden age of peace, the United States military has killed or helped kill some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 84 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. The United States is responsible for the deaths of 5 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and over 1 million just since 2003 in Iraq.
Since 2001, the United States has been systematically destroying a region of the globe, bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, not to mention the Philippines. The United States has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces in three-quarters of them."
[davidswanson]
Do you think the civilians who lived here deserved to die?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The REAL aim is still China.
Spot their "frontlines" (in times of peace) as potential "unsinkable aircraft carriers."
Russia, desired as territory as eventually "carved up" into smaller pieces and turned into future minions, is simply the means to an end.
Korea, Vietnam, Ukraine...
Will the little minions ("buck catchers" in strategy) ever learn?
Those who eagerly "carve up" others, even along arbitrary human-made boundaries on a map, dividing individuals, organisations, families, and businesses, are unlikely to agree with being "carved up" by someone else.
Korea was divided by imperialists during World War II (with the cooperation of the imperialist Allied camp) without consulting the local population about their priorities.
A few years later, they attempted the same in Vietnam, using the ongoing war of independence as a pretext (marketed as "the USA saving the world from communism"). This time the imperialist "winners" of WW2 were on opposing sides. The effort was unsuccessful.
The true objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China
According to Wikipedia: "Main article: China containment policy. As articulated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-term strategic initiative to encircle Beijing with the USSR and its satellite states, as well as: The Japan–Korea front, The India–Pakistan front, and The Southeast Asia front. Although President Johnson claimed that the goal of the Vietnam War was to ensure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a memorandum from January 1965 by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton indicated that an underlying justification was "not to assist a friend, but to contain China". On November 3, 1965, Secretary of Defense McNamara sent a memorandum to Johnson, outlining "major policy decisions regarding our course of action in Vietnam". The memorandum begins by revealing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965: 'The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they support a long-term United States policy to contain China. McNamara accused China of having imperial ambitions similar to those of the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States: 'China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30s, and like the USSR in 1947—emerges as a significant power threatening to undermine our importance and effectiveness globally and, more distantly but more ominously, to unite all of Asia against us.'
Note that this is a common tactic in international relations: accuse the "other side" of actions that one is undertaking oneself. The strategy of divide-and-rule is kept hidden, while the opposing side is accused of having malicious intentions, without providing any actual evidence (the concept of "accusation without proof"). To encircle China, the United States aimed to establish "three fronts" as part of a "long-term effort to contain China": 'There are three fronts to a long-term effort to contain China (recognising that the USSR "contains" China to the north and northwest): (a) the Japan–Korea front; (b) the India–Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.'
Later, McNamara acknowledged that containing China would ultimately cost America a considerable amount of time, money, and lives. As is often the case, "extending" a rising rival power incurs "expenses", including lives, which is why the intention is to create proxies in artificial entities like "South Vietnam" to carry out such containment for the dominant power.
This is divide-and-rule.
Favouritism, or the "paid/supported proxy", can be employed during peacetime to undermine rivals or wage subversive warfare, or during wartime to reduce costs and losses while gaining systemic advantages after a "victory". When a proxy fails to achieve this "extension of the rival", it is quickly abandoned or discarded to cut the "investment", and a new proxy is sought. This pattern was evident in the 1930s: in 1939, the "first proxy" identified was Poland, and when Poland failed to "extend Germany" for a prolonged period, it was decided to provoke either Germany or the USSR to invade Scandinavia (Plan R4). Ideally, both Germany and the SU would invade Scandinavia, leading to a potential clash there, distracting attacks away from the heartlands. While Great Britain and France still cooperated, this was straightforward: both would benefit if the war "pivoted away" from Western Europe/British Isles into Scandinavia. If the attention could be focused somewhere else on the map, a Battle of Britain and a Battle of France could potentially be avoided, if the Germans became bogged down in Scandinavia for example...
That did not occur.
However.
Align with such individuals at your own risk.
They do not adhere to the Christian values they consistently boast as being "oh-so-superior" and worthy of admiration...
North Korea/South Korea (implemented "unsinkable aircraft carrier").
North Vietnam/South Vietnam (intention/failure).
East Ukraine/West Ukraine (in progress).
Always the same playbook.
The modus operandi has been consistent since 1776: advancing onto another power's borders (systematically), also through proxies, then blaming those who are encroached upon/encircled if they react, or blaming the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War advance began in the 1990s, so even if the Trump administration did not initiate the "marching order", it is a fact that he did not halt it either when he had the chance during his first term (2017-2021). This can be examined as empirical evidence (observation/map) which clarifies who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should avoid engaging with debaters who base their theories on ideology or emotions, especially not if the advocate reveals themselves as dogmatic, prone to logical fallacies or cognitive biases. Such individuals are not interested in outcomes but wish to make "debates" go in circles indefinitely, obfuscating, side-lining, and finger-pointing to evade the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current trajectory of the empire, which began when the USSR faced economic decline in the late 1980s, with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the advance)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the advance)
Continuously advance, trampling over one red line after another, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). If anything negative occurs, and lives are lost, always blame someone else. This type of imperialist behaviour, as demonstrated by Washington DC and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not begin solely after World War II. This marching order has been in place since 1776, with the first victims being neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territories were coveted. That was followed by Spain in the 1890s (put into action in 1898) whose desirable territories would create a link between the USA and East Asia.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries so that any economic surplus generated by that country is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US government, and especially to US bondholders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It remains the same today as it has since 1776.
The reality is that neither Trump nor any previous administration has halted this (systemic) "slow march" of systemic expansion, whilst getting the "buck catcher" to pick up the tab if things don't turn out as strategized.
Be cautious of the ideologically indoctrinated: Like a child, they confidently repeat things they do not know to be true.
1
-
@R Shreve Google the War on Drugs.
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal: a few grams of weed.
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
Tell me, in case you disagree: why should a white middle-class neighborhood infested with opioid addicts, not get the same treatment by the cops, as poor neighborhoods?
Who decided that an opioid addict is a victim but a heroin/crack addict a criminal?
You answer that truthfully, even if only to yourself in silence, and you'll know the answer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
True.
Also the fact that "empires" look for "tools" (aka "the proxy") to do their fighting for them.
The biggest gains go to the "big money"-players.
People's History of the United States Howard Zinn:
"My history ... describes the inspiring struggle of those who have fought slavery and racism (Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, Fannie Lou Hamer, Bob Moses), of the labor organizers who have led strikes for the rights of working people (Big Bill Haywood, Mother Jones, César Chávez), of the socialists and others who have protested war and militarism (Eugene V. Debs, Helen Keller, the Rev. Daniel Berrigan, Cindy Sheehan). My hero is not Theodore Roosevelt, who loved war and congratulated a general after a massacre of Filipino villagers at the turn of the century, but Mark Twain, who denounced the massacre and satirized imperialism.[11][12] I want young people to understand that ours is a beautiful country, but it has been taken over by men who have no respect for human rights or constitutional liberties. Our people are basically decent and caring, and our highest ideals are expressed in the Declaration of Independence, which says that all of us have an equal right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The history of our country, I point out in my book, is a striving, against corporate robber barons and war makers, to make those ideals a reality—and all of us, of whatever age, can find immense satisfaction in becoming part of that.[13]"
1
-
Why is anybody surprised that an empire votes for an imperialist?
It was not difficult to predict, that an imperialist system in which the sane half of its population has little power to change anything, will vote a supreme manipulator into power...
Why is anybody surprized that a shamelss gutless system primarily focussed on greed and expansion cheers for misery and destruction, as long as it isn´t the own?
"If the USA gets a cold, the rest of the world gets the flu".
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Honestly, what more is there to say? USA: "If I get a cold, the rest of the world is going to suffer worse." This must be the most pathetic acknowledgement of subjection I've read my entire life. If your global neighbor gets an economic "cold" and you can't simply send them a get-well-soon-card and continue with your own life unaffected, you are already in an internationalist/globalist entanglement. The "DJTs" of the system come and go, but their strategies remain consistant.
"If the USA votes, the rest of the world looks on in awe and anticipation (2024)."
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Honestly, what more is there to say? USA: "If Americans vote an imperialist into office, the rest of the world is going to have to deal with it." This must be the most pathetic acknowledgement of subjection I've read my entire life. If your global neighbor votes in an imperialist and a convicted fellon into office, and you can't simply send them an "oh what a pity"-look on your face and continue with your own life unaffected, your safety assured because there is a GLOBAL BALANCE OF POWER, you are already in a globalist entanglement.
It was not difficult to predict, that an imperialist system in which the sane half of its population has little power to change anything, will vote a slimeball into power...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pj_ytmt-123 The "line drawing" by outside powers (France and Great Britain) started before, during WW1 (Balfour Declaration/Sykes-Picot).
No, that wasn't what the Arabs had signed up for when the promises were initially made to get them to rise up against the Ottoman Empire. They had been promised an "Arab state", and the Balfour Declaration and Sykes-Picot were initially kept secret, without any involvement of Arab leaders. Later the "line drawing" favored mass-immigration to such a "sector" of the lines (Palestine). No, the 650,000 people already living here, of various ethnic/teligious groups, were never asked whether they agreed to such "lines". A plebiscite or referendum was never held, a very imperiast attitude, esp. regarding the promises made with regards to "why we fight" (Allies/WW1), who stated that no nation should ever have to accept having rulings imposed onto them without consent.
After the war such grand declarations of being the "good guys" were quickly forgotten, and imperialism became the norm ("might is right").
Such "favoratism" of settler colonialism as in Palestine, was the same as carried out in parallel in many places in the Empire, Kenya for example. Here the "White Highlands" were vacated after WW1 to make room for settler colonists from Europe (in other words, "migrants" or "immigrants" from abroad).
Note that the "favoratism" of certain groups above others is always "divide and rule", an imperialist strategy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The long shadow of the Treaty of Versailles:
Versailles was the "divide and rule" of and over continental Europeans, by outsiders of course. Everything following in its wake, was the EFFECT. Like it or not, reality does not care what any individual thinks. At Versailles, the people of Europe were "divided" with a "ruling." Such a "divide and rule"-strategy on the "dark side," lay the foundation of problems which have a clear causal chain of political problems leading right through to WW2, and even right through to today. The Treaty of Versailles was done for own gain after WW1 (obviously, weakening Central Europe by "carving it up," indirectly resulted in gaining more own strength/ more POWER for the dividers, by subtracting power from those systems being divided). The dividing powers were obviously wrong, because to an overwhelming extent, nobody bothered asking the people so divided what political future they wanted for themselves by means of referenda/plebiscites (overwhelmingly NOT carried out in those regions where it really mattered). Obviously also a BIG wrong, because by that time the leaders already knew what "dark divide and rule" might/could lead to in some possible future...
Empires use and abuse human beings as...
- walls and barriers
- as proxies for the own gain
- as tools (instruments of power)
- as potential "staging areas" for future own use
- as "extensions" of the own power (or increased "reach" for the imperialist power)
Imperialist arguing about the price tag for such services rendered. During the 1930s, the imperialists in Berlin, and the imperialists in London haggled about what should be considered a fair price in order for Germany to balance out the rise of the Soviet Union after the successful implementation of Moscow's 5-Year Plans, leading to a rapid steep rise of Soviet industrial- and military power during the 1930s, which threatened British rule over South Asia (see the history of the Second Tournament of Shadows (the rekindled "Great Game" of the 19th Century). Notice that such "haggling" can take place without a single direct meeting. Or, it can be explained by looking at actual events.
It is in fact revealed by reality, created by the events.
Place the EVENTS first.
So...first on the price tag list: a nice big navy...check.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_Naval_Agreement
A little piece of Germany back...check.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remilitarisation_of_the_Rhineland
A tiny sliver of Czechoslovakia...check.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
A nice little increase of political and military WEIGHT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Steel
(Based on a famous song from "To be or not to be" by Mel Brooks, 1984)
If German taxpayers were going to pay the taxes, and work to "man the parapets" of the limitrophe, to balance out Russia on the other side of the WALL, there was going to be "price tag." Like it or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitrophe_states
Europe wanted it that way and implemented this geopolitically with the Treaty of Versailles.
In the 1930s, Europe then GOT what it wanted, and what had been set up.
Cause.
Effect.
Simple.
"In 1980, I heard Ralph Raico give a series of lectures at Dartmouth College on World War I. At the time, I thought how great it would be to have those lectures published. I am extremely happy that this second edition provides the student of liberty with Ralph's ideas and the research evidenced by his extensive footnotes. His article on World War I is the best, most concise statement regarding the real causes and effects — the costs—of World War I that I have seen. The title of his article, "World War I: The Turning Point" indicates that World War I, which culminated in the horrible Treaty of Versailles, constituted the turning point for all of Western civilization. It set the stage for wars throughout the remainder of the 20th century, and virtually assured that another war would occur in Europe ..." From "The Costs of War" : America's Pyrrhic Victories / edited with an introduction by John V. Denson. — 2nd expanded ed.
Set the stage.
Lay the foundation.
Fail.
If you have the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being on the own "side" on the rim of the world, faraway from what one has lain the foundation for, then one simply does not have to care what happens in some or other foreseeable future. The own side can benefit from whatever happens...
As long as Europeans are dumb enough to believe faraway empires are there to protect them, and can't grasp HOW they are being mis/used to protect the bigger empire, then Europeans will have to keep on suffering.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better.
Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power.
In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, so by 1945 the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." (end of)
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided" (the role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative. "Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...)
London went from chief divider to chief of the divided in less than a quarter of a century.
Whatever...
If your state or nation is "not at the table," you are "lunch" (Anthony Blinken).
The dividers telling everybody in no uncertain terms, that their interests and even their lives don't count. There is no doubt that Washington DC is attempting to repeat this "success" (pov) in the rising powers of Asia. Indian Minister of External Affairs Dr. Jaishankar said: "The era of US dominance, which began after the end of the Cold War, has effectively ended." The strategy can be observed to be implemented in the same way as was set up post-1900 in Europe, but in Europe the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer theory) were Great Britain and France. Today, it is India being used in the same role as France was 100 years ago. In case of a wider war in Asia, as India is set up against China, qui bono if all lose?
The technique Washington DC employed up to the year 2000, is an almost exact repeat of the technique they used to overpower Europe around the year 1900: DIVIDE AND RULE.
Divide and rule creates all that follows in its wake:
1) The terrorist.
2) The state of terror.
3) The terror state.
Just in: Anthony "stay behind the lines" Blinken assuring the frontline proxies like Ukraine and Israel that the USA is "by their side".
Me: Beyond ROTFL, leading from the rear...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you live in a frontier fort composed of civilians, intended to surround a concentration camp, then what did these settler colonists expect? Neighbors who bring them candy and flowers?
Hamas was created by Israel with a divide and rule intention, to undermine the authority of the PLO. Search that and one will find hundreds of articles, incl. from Israeli sources, which will confirm this intentional Israeli strategy of deceit and division.
Gaza is the world's biggest concentration camp, ringed in by a cicle of Kibbutzim, inhabited by settler colonists. If you want to know what's going on, ask a Jwe. They will honestly tell you straight in your face, and dare you to resist: "We are a generation that settles the land, and without the steel helmet and the cannon's fire we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home.” Moshe Dayan
The intention is ethnic cleansing, and a pretext is needed to vacate the land under the terror of cannon fire, in order to create the next concentration camp, ringed in by the next ring of Kibbutzim, inhabited by the next selction of future "victims of terrorism"...
What you are witnissing today, is the own biblical "logic" of "reap as you sow".
Israel INTENDED to "sow division" between the peoples of Palestine, and now they are "reaping" the effects.
Not a nice personal tale, agreed, so sorry about the personal misfortune of living in a frontier fort, and becoming a tool of encirclement.
But the own personal decisions to live a life as soldiers of fortune, using own families as a human shields, whilst surrounding an open-air concentration camp, sometimes have unhappy consequences...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Asia, Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join up...
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Only once there is an impact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial well-organized rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, international big business, and lobby-friendly Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politicians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles (see my comment 4 weeks ago).
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct date on the timeline which is March 1939, when they did nothing.
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not in my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies. How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets have they. Me want some...me take some."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen positive relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Curb the darker aspects which create internal division.
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Be principled, or become a tool.
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up.
Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Strategic ambiguity is generally defined as "purposefully being vague to derive personal or organizational benefit." Zaremba, A. J. (2010).
Or as the street would say, "sticking the finger in every pie possible everywhere, anytime, but mum's the word..."
Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.
Too much intent on short-term gain, at the expense of long-term stability, leads to the foundations of an empire (any "empire") or corporation turning into the "clay" of the famous symbolism/idiom: Warrior with clay feet.
In this regard, the turn of the previous century offers many examples of "nails in the coffin" of the British Empire, and allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 to expire (see below comment), rather than morphing it into something more suitable for the times, is an example of "clay feet" rapidly being created. Along with similar turn of the century examples, like the 2nd Boer War, and not pushing for a more united Europe, being other examples of "clay feet" created which evtl. led to the topling of the "warrior" called the British Empire.
The most compelling argument (on the surface) against renewing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 was made by Canada. Of course the fear of being dragged into of a war between Japan and the USA via London/GB/British Empire, for whatever reason, would have hit Canada hardest. Therefore an argument against a treaty with Japan is compelling...but also false.
At the time, the issue was mainly China.
Fact: The isn't a single example of a nation or state being "forced" into a war its hawks did not already find desirable or inevitable, etc.
It would have been fairly simple to morph the existing Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1911, to exclude any acts of provocation or aggression by Japan. That way, in case it was Japan which was pushing for trouble, London/GB could have taken action to restrict it (by stating that Japan would be on its own if it provoked a war with the USA, and ignoring warnings in re. to such). Another factor often forgotten, is that within the British Empire, the Domininions had gained the rights to declare war themselves. Unlike colonies like India, which London held the right to declare war on behalf of, nobody could force Canada to become involved in a war, and a declaration of neutrality was always an option.
Of course, in a decent world, nobody would dare invade a neutral, so that Canada was safe under all foreseeable circumstances (at least "de jure").
The argument "Empire potentialy drawn into a war started by Japan" at some point after WW1 is invalid, and therefore other reasons for not extending the treaty must have existed, which are clouded by secrecy even up to today.
In regards to keeping the Anglo-Japanese Treaty intact, and granting the Japanese nation the "honor" of becoming equals at Versailles.
According to Machiavelli, it would also have been a wise step towards saving the British Empire (along with ending the short-sighted European habit of "creating pariahs per treaty"). The argument usually raised here is "yeah..but the Japs didn't want everybody to be racially equal, so duh..."
True.
The "totally un-racist" London (lol) could have outflanked the equally racist leaders in Tokyo, who just advocated "racial equality" for themselves of course, and advocated for "racial equality" as a general obligation or declaration of intent, for all races.
Machiavelli...
What did Machiavelli say about the real value of mercenary armies you must pay (money as incentive) to do own bidding?
"And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress; and mercenaries doing nothing except damage." Nicolo Machiavelli, 1505
Obviously, money is a great incentive to "sign up" for something, but it offers less incentive to die for a cause one isn't exactly a fan of...
Starting around 1900, but especially after the financial "slap on the wrist" of WW1, the Lords in London could and should have turned masses of "inferiors per desired outcome" in their crumbling Empire into a "Pound block of equals".
They could have turned the masses of "inferiors" all over the world, into "armies of equals".
The old strategies again proving themselves almost 100% correct, for when the time came (1940) GB found itself "alone on the beaches and in the hills", rather than have millions of "equals" turning up to fight for a common cause. Own previous failures, simply offered the incentive for "masses of inferiors" to "sit on the fence" to await the outcome for own causes.
Combined in mutually beneficial alliances, rather than "inferior mercenies" which came from "colonies", to create mutually protecting dominion-like independent/suzerein states in a re-organized soft-power empire was the option not taken. Unfortunately, the spineless and equally racist "hero lords" in London, unwilling to stand up to wrongs, did not understand even this most simplest of logic, and therefore lost their inheritance (Empire).
"The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonorably, foolishly, viciously." Julian Barnes
Everything you've been made to recite as a "chest thump/cool move"-moment in history, like Versailles or allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty to lapse without a replacement, simply just another nail in their own coffin of "Empire".
The gatekeepers in London (starting "around 1900"), a total failure.
Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.
You don't become "the best", if you finger-point at someone "bad".
You don't become "high IQ", if you consider someone else "low IQ".
You don't become "smart", if you laugh at someone "stupid".
You don't become "more superior" if you look down at someone you've termed "inferior".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@caninesandcompany ...because that's how divide-and-rule works.
Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar.
Washington DC s strategy is constant, using a geographical position of power.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equilibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to, and gaslighting the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequilibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equilibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The "divide and control/rule/conquer"-world is intact. It is practically as old as modern civilisation, and has never been defeated. Those with true power will do their utmost to ensure that the "divide and rule"-world we live in today, will rule for all times, because the DIVIDERS win, if all others fail.
The divide-and-rule system is a formless headless global system composed of every imaginable race, religion, ethnicity, language group, class, creed as an "ingroup" of power. This ingroup which intends to DIVIDE emergent unity elsewhere, contains all forms of "personal conviction" as "-ism" imaginable, with only a little input from top tiers.
Their aim is division.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TSD0416 It is not the people in every country who decide on a country's policy. It is the mega-rich, and politically connected "ruler/owner/donor" class...
Here's what you can personally do.
Start pulling the rug from underneath their feet...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
Politicians can never admit they made mistakes, so they have to create abstractions to cover up their blundering...
Europe was already set up to fail at Versailles.
Because the policies of "balancing powers" were made in the back rooms...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
That Germany was "allowed" to rearm during the 1930's (or "closing an eye to Hitler re-arming") was an effect of a policy dictated to the continent by London, and put into effect, yet again, at Versailles: Balance of Power.
So the later Germany/Hitler re-arming and standing up to rising communism suited the lords in London just fine...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_five-year_plan
[Note, the term "power" encompasses a wide range of qualities from population growth, level of education (including scientists, mechanics, and engineers), scientific advances, level of industrialisation, urbanisation/i.e. advanced society, infrastructure projects, increased GDP, and yes...soldiers, tanks, guns, airplanes...]
As the SU grew, so did Germany.
Perfectly fine, if you ask the lords...
It was "allowed" to grow and to "balance out" communism.
Why complain about it in hindsight?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Who has ever heard of the big bad scarecrow?
Dresden Bombed To Atoms (1945)
(Copy and paste into the YT search engine, then go 23 seconds into the newsreel)
For years after the end of WW2, newsreels like this British Pathe informed us about the events of WW2.
The docs were filled with exciting tidbits, and exhilarating 'facts'. For example, one of the 'facts' the historians told us about was how the Germans had 'devised a scarecrow weapon': a massive aerial explosion which was meant to look like an exploding plane. The German intention was to scare away 'our boys from doing the job'. Like a scarecrow in the fields, these explosions were intended to scare British air crews away from bombing their targets, the city centers.
These massive explosions were merely 'a clever German ruse', and a 'new German weapon'.
Or, so we were being told...
"The No. 30 tail pistol (detonator), which was widely used in all medium calibre bombs throughout the war, is a good example of the difficulty Bomber Command had in obtaining operational feedback on bombing attacks. Bomber Command only became aware that the No. 30 pistol had severe problems when its crews undertook daylight-bombing operations in the autumn of 1944. During this period, bomber crews were appalled to see bombs dropped from accompanying aircraft explode as they left the aircraft. Subsequent investigations found that the nut on the striker spindle was binding and forcing the spindle onto the detonator. In the dark, this fault had not been obvious and crews, if they survived, would have assumed that the explosion was German flak. Attempts to fix the problems did not entirely prevent these premature detonations and the designers had found no fix for the problem before the war ended. It is therefore reasonable to suspect that a large percentage of the medium sized bombs using the No. 30 Pistol failed and, worse, they may have been responsible for the destruction of the aircraft that carried them."
(Source BRITAIN 1939 – 1945: THE ECONOMIC COST OF STRATEGIC BOMBING)
So, here is how some of our esteemed historians work.
When the truth comes out, do they stand up and inform us about how they have misinformed us, and distorted the truth?
Do they admit that they have lied, if it was a clear-cut case of lying?
Nope.
Doesn't happen.
The reality is that misconceptions which were spread for years, are simply quietly dropped.
Of course, it is hoped that the docile sheep who believed what had been dished up to them for years, are simply too pre-occupied to notice.
Worked well, works well all the time when dealing with mere sheep...
Need any more evidence?
`Nazi War Plants Blasted By R.A.F. In Night Raids (1943)' see at 1.34 minutes when the commentator says '.. a bomb hit by flak in mid air...'
I call bs. It was a bomb exploding in mid-air, caused by it's own faulty fuse...or even worse: maybe even an exploding plane, downed by a known engineering error.
Critical question: If they "lie by omission" about something this minor, then what are they lying about today, hoping you'll forget in 10 or 20 years when the truth comes out?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Many of these new people coming to Europe, came because the USA/collective West destroyed their homelands with endless imperialistic wars, sanctions, and other means of economic oppression.
It is not 1800, or 1850, or even 1950 anymore. They will come (refugees, mass migration), as long as our elites destroy their prospects of living a decent and prosperous life in other places in the world.
Same will happen here, if the USA/collective West keeps on playing "divide and rule" in East Asia, by not recognizing Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan, as per international agreements. Western imperialist powers are playing the long game, hoping that the people of Taiwan will morph over time, and turning these morphed peoole into tools of Western imperialism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A systemic analysis is accurate regardless of anybody's personal biases and personal failures in reasoning. The systemic analysis of how power worked back in the days of the Roman Empire (history), on on the tier of a company (corporatism/today), and how IR works today (top tiers) despite all the historically changing "rules" and laws. Any own personal standpoint which is something along the lines of "always on the right side of history cos we say so" (false premise, since it depends on who you ask) has nothing to do with how history unfolds.
The systemic analysis, is always valid.
Historically the USA was one of the multitude of bad guys of history, which has simply always enjoyed a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER, meaning its centers of power could always simply get away with all the bad it did. This is not a fallacy in reasoning, or any other bias or whatever, but a systemic analysis, and the USA has a long history of systemic browbeating and top down violence, for own systemic benefits.
The so-called "rules based order."
"RULES ARE FOR THEE BUT NOT FOR ME": A GEOPOSITIONAL ANALYSIS
The rules the top tiers of systemic pyramids make, just so happen to benefit those who make the rules, and who happen to be in a geopositional advantage on the domestic politics playing field, and hold geographical advantages on a global scale, to suffer no consequences should these made up rules backfire.
This is true up and down the tiers of power.
We are relying on the very people who "rule the world," or the people we pay (incl. politicians), or the people whose entire existence in sinecure comfort depend on keeping us "informed," (like journalists) to tell us how power really works. They are not going to tell us, because they wish to keep us subjected in the "good fool"-relationship (90% of the good people on the planet),
They are not going to tell us how they rule by division on ALL tiers, and how they have ruled by division on all tiers for thousands of years. It is about the oldest trick in the book, to rule by division from a position of POWER. They will tell us, their "good fools," that it is all about the good vs. the bad but guess what they are NOT telling us? They never state HOW they manage it.
The top tiers divide and rule, and this functions in one direction only: down, to the base, which is "we the people."
They divide us, but we have no way or means to divide them in return.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matsjonsson9492 You cannot jump in on the middle of a historical timeline and proclaim "well, here is where history starts".
History didn't start on 9/11...
You must have objectively valid arguments to point at a WATERSHED in history.
A watershed of course, the conclusion that there was a point in time that history could have taken another course entirely.
Simply pointing at THEM is bias.
If you are biased, you'll make a conclusion first and then twist and cherry pick the facts to suite a position you have already decided beforehand
If your own side has initiative, and the power, then your side is wrong if it doesn't use it for the better cause, which is to advance peace.
There were 2 watersheds in history, where the USA objectively screwed up.
1) CAUSE: early 1950s decision to ignore the Soviet suggestion to leave the ME a neutral zone EFFECT: the USA meddled and the Cold War impacted the ME
2) CAUSE: early 1990s decision to ignore the end of the Cold War, and apply pressure in Israel to settle the Israeli-Palestine conflict (a core issue) EFFECT: The USA did not exit the ME after the end of the Cold War, but stayed by own choice
[Note here, this does not even address the previous watershed in history, when the West, GB and France, decided to rule the ME under the auspices of "mandates"]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I just came here from a comments section from a video praising "hero Trump" for his ...ahem... "efforts to stop the war", with hundreds and hundreds of fools arguing about the effects, and their priorities, and fingers pointing here and there.... but maybe 1 or 2 mentioning the causes of this war which started 30 years ago.
Trump of course, during his first term (2017-2021), did not stop the "marching empire" [systemic expansion], so he was just another POTUS, an imperialist, just like all the others before...
-----------------------
Why is anybody surprised? The USA instigates wars or does not avoid them (even if possible), or lays the foundations for crises it aims to profit from using the divide-and-rule technique in IR. It is also a divide-and-rule Mecca for the ultra-rich who practice it on the domestic tier also.
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided people are easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy. Lies (incl. "lying by omission") is an integral part of the strategy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
1
-
Correct.
Re. "Who benefited most from Mers, and who lost most".
The general consensus is that The British Empire was the "winner", and that "France was the loser".
Wrong.
Reality? For the second time in 20 years, "the lights would go out", and others would benefit. Because, the type of rule or economy plays little role in the outcome of whether one "rules the world" or not.
Geography plays a far bigger role.
So at the turn of century London "ruled the world" because geography isolated them from the continent and their island status gave them the upper hand at a time when war was still the common way to determine "top dog" or not....
When development of weapons produced ever further reaching weapons of war, GB's island status did not offer the same measure of protection anymore...so they went down.
The weapons of 1900 couldn't harm the British Empire, but the weapons of 1945 could....
In that era around WW2, it was the USA which was (as the sole power) isolated from this "great game", and benefited as the result of its geographical isolation, and because there was that "one ring which ruled them all"...lol, but in a good way of course.
And it wasn't only the forces of evil who wanted to "rule the world", but also people who thought they had a God-given right to do so...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
...and who thought they were better than everybody else...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trollfinger Yes, the "powers that be" will always follow policies.
Policies are long lasting, while in democracies leaders and administrations come and go.
We need to focus more in the policies which cause harm.
But most people are emotional, and therefore focussed on people, rather than boring policies which inanimate objects.
Our leaders can be shown on TV, ridiculed or praised, made jokes about, seen in debates while they talk and talk and talk and talk....
But nothing will change, until the policies change.
Facts remains that we are entrenched in the ME today, as an effect of past policies (for GB it is still lasting effects of "Empire") while for the USA it is the effect of more current lobbying (see PNAC), and the Cold War era.
France it seems, is the only country which has successfully shaken off the past...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kirmie
Yes and no.
Remember that every American has the unalienable right to life, liberty and happiness, and may gather in groups freely, and nobody can stop them from doing so.
Chow should simply have voted or abstained, just like everybody else did. But that isn't what happened.
Everybody else who voted that day simply voted, and restrained from giving long accounts of why they chose to vote a certain way. Nobody cares about her personal life choices, and don't want to be constantly preached to about her personal choices, and that her personal way of life is the only "good, right, and true" (sic.) way...
[maybe Google her entire statement, which is a full page long]
Let's turn this around to show what I mean.
Imagine if this was an LGBTQ person telling Chow that she should abide with the LGBTQ way of life (personal choice) and tell her that only the LGBTQ way of life is "good, right, and true"?
You see, they didn't that. They respect her choices, and don't preach to her, constantly reminding her that her belief (an invisible man in the sky) is silly in their opinion...
There is a time for everything, and she is free to express her opinions in debates, blogs, churches, forums, speeches, and many other places where and when expressing her opinions are welcome as a private individual...
BUT
when she is voting on a matter which impacts the lives of thousands of others, a person aspiring to politics should refrain from linking personal convictions, to political decisions, as the founding fathers had hoped could be achieved...
In conclusion, she should not have made the statement, and simply abstained from voting without comment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GB had a "geographical advantage" because the term is far ore than simply "a map".
A "geographical advantage" means an advantage in term of raw materials, technological edge, education of "masses" (turning them into usefull tools to advance "greater causes"), popolation numbers, systemof government, etc.
In the 19th Century, GB had an advantage, an could "play out" continental rivals against each other.
France did the same, because with Spain as an ally, they only had to face weaker easily divided "dynistical" states and kingdoms to their east.
The minute these "dynisties" united (1871), France lost its "geographical advantage", and Germany dominated Cental Europe.
Islands like Madagascar lacked the population, technology, or system of government which would have allowed them to equally rise in power. Complacency within their small isolated "world" meant they didn't have to face the struggles Europe had gone though for a 1000 years, and were completely unprepared when the first Arabs and Europeans arrived on their shores with "greater" intentions.
1
-
1
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians and linguistically related) and West Asia (most of whom follow Abrahamic religions and are linguistically related) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
During the Fist Cold War (1945-1991) the off-continental powers stepped onto the "G-G Line" (Germany to Greece), and had little minions man the parapets of the wall.
During the Second Cold War (1990s-today) the off-continental powers stepped onto the "B-B Line" (Baltics to Black Sea), and are going to set up little minions to man the parapets of the wall. Ratchet principle, since 1776...
This is divide-and-rule/conquer.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using power players.
Create favourites: favouritism for the proxies who bow down.
Point the finger, everywhere else using the power and reach of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, and because they say so it must be true. But who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all others failed to unite? We, the people, were enamoured by the story the dividers told us, of "good guys" vs. "bad guys", or always "as seen on TV."
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
The "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy".
The opposition which want unity in a region are the "bad guys".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion. Post WW2, the Albion 2.0 took over.
The reason I always recommend these books first is because it points to how divide-and-rule is implemented, even though it is never mentioned. Anybody who knows how divide-and-rule is implemented, can read any book and then recognize the tell-tale details revealing the strategy. This is divide-and-rule, a long-term strategy of power which is revealed by the events, not the words used by analysts who are all biased to an extent. The overall strategy is divide-and-rule, and one can implement it with a few key advantages, mainly:
1) the distance from the evolving events
2) the POWER (economic, political, military, financial) to afford advantages to own instruments of power
3) the time to wait, without compunction, granted by the luxury of 1) "distance," to await how events one has contributed to, unfold.
We in search of unity, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized by the MIC/MIMAC...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D-chess". Everything you know is a "spin on" and a "framing of" reality. They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". The intention of divide-and-rule is to avoid unity elsewhere on the planet, and create loyalty within the own "ranks" of power. It is a man-made system, and not the natural order of things. The natural order of things is "equilibrium" as exists in nature.
The nature of some human beings who seek multiple-tier systemic gain, is to avoid unity formatting amongst those who could potentially oppose them, if they united. In case you wish to bow down to the "dividers" because you think there is something "in it" for you too, then there is a fate waiting for you: to become a "finger pointer" (distractor, deflector).
Also it only works within a technological timeframe: for the British Empire it was while naval power "ruled the world", and the own core heartland was "unreachable", and from this unbreakable fort, could "divide" all others, avoiding them from uniting. After WW2 and today, it will only work for as long as the combination of political clout, nuclear weapons, and cultural hegemony can overpower all others, and avoid all others from uniting.
The American "heartland" is already not unreachable anymore, so the USA is playing a dangerous game. Intentions to divide others, might just achieve the opposite effect.
1
-
Today, Washington DC/USA intends to keep its role as "alpha" of the world (just like London/GB did "around 1900"), gained from European empires after WW2.
There is even an "insider joke" about NATO, which is that it intends to "keep Germany down, and Russia out".
Effect: Washington DC/USA stays the master of European affairs.
NATO is now just another tool in the toolbox of "divide and conquer", going back all the way to the 18th century, when the USA was first established.
European powers failed to morph NATO into a more suitable system following the end of the Cold War "around the year 2000".
A system including Russia and all post-Warsaw Pact nations equally, in a comprehensive security agreement.
Note always: What did not happen.
Of course a comprehensive security agreement without ...ahem...."parallel tweaties", and a "morphed NATO" into a strong arm of international law = power to actually follow up with punch if "the law" is broken.
A new system under which laws, codified by the international community, actually formed a basis of cooperation, not "muh interests you know..."
US leaders realized that the key to their own superiority lay in dividing Europeans any which way they could (note, "Europe" is a geographical term, and includes Russia).
Sowing dissent.
The "freedom and democracy"-argument, backed up by coffers filled to the brim with "slush fund" money...
Sow dissent.
Irrelevant of whether the actors come with good intentions, or are even aware of what they are ultimately doing: Divide and Rule/Conquer, for a different system.
"In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution had been defeated and its leaders, who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile by the Stadtholder, William V, Prince of Orange, in league with the old oligarchs and with the intervention of Britain and Prussia. Adams and Jefferson agonized for the Dutch Patriots, but felt that they had been betrayed by their own excesses as well as by their Bourbon ally. The fact that France, pledged to the Patriots, had not lifted a finger in their support offered a melancholy lesson for the United States..."
(from ugapress manifoldapp)
Who doth even recognize the "freedom and democracy"-argument here?
Irrelevant of intentions, it fits the definition of "sowing dissent" in an existing "system".
Irrelevant of whether the reader has any personal preferences: the actions fit words, and words have definitions, which are a strategy. Divide others, to avoid unity.
Of course, at this early stage the USA had no way to implement "rule" in any form.
A divided Europe suited Washington DC just fine, because should Europe ever unite, it could pose an existential threat to the new USA...
The more division in Europe, the better.
Support whatever divides.
Oppose whatever unites.
For the own side: the more unity in North America, the better.
The "rule"-part over Europe would have to wait...
And in North America, other...ahem..."systems" would have to go too (American Civil War, all about "poor slaves" we are told...)
So much for the New World.
In the leadup to WW1, London thought they were clever, and that they could gain by dividing everybody else in Europe. "Divide and rule/conquer": note that "rule" has different meanings, and one meaning of the word is simply to "dictate terms" to others, based on an advantage in power.
To make it clear, London never intended "direct rule" over any continental country or adversary, because they were too weak for that, but rather to divide continental powers and thereby gain the advantage of dictating terms in case of negotiations, crisis, or wars.
What "the lords" didn't seem to notice, was that while they were "ruling" over the continent, based on a geographical advantage, somebody else was playing the same game with them.
It was Washington DC, playing "divide and conquer/rule" with Europe, and to the leaders here, GB was simply a part of "Europe" (geographical entity).
There are two ways to conquer people: one is by war, the other by debt, which is exactly what Washington DC did.
After a few hundred years, the game had simply been flipped 180 degrees.
Around 1900 there were "two systems" in Europe: one "librul" (lol), one "conservative"...
The "dividers and rulers" could play to their heart's content...
And around 2000 "history rhymed", and nobody noticed...
1
-
After 8:10 minutes
The fallacy is thinking "US regime change ops" were a thing of the Cold War.
WW1 was the biggest US "regime change operation" in history (see the primary source below).
Though the war was not necessarily started with the intent of "regime change" as done with smaller less powerful states in the classical "regime change ops" we usually associate with the post-WW2 era of the Cold War, the situation as it unfolded (1914-18) was exploited in order to impose a "regime change".
"If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler." - Winston Churchill, 26th April 1946
That short statement practically has "regime change" written all over it.
That short statement also makes it clear what happens if one removes the gatekeepers (monarchy) of a political system from power, which then opens the door for all kinds of ideologues.
They thought they could throw out the monarchs, and morph Germany into becoming "more like us" (old Roman technique of power), and there would be no consequences.
Whatever they thought, one thing is clear: US think tanks who wrote the 14 Points Speech KNEW they were far enough away from Europe not to have to face any consequences should their own suggestions combined with the invariably following top-down implementations result in blowback (causality).
So what had led Churchill to make such a statement? As part of the 14-Point Plan, Wilson demanded that Germany de-throne Wilhelm II, before any peace talks could begin. The Allies also refused a German delegation as part of the peace talks in 1919. WW1 was the USA's hitherto biggest "regime change operation" (Germany). Because here is what they tell you is history in thousands and thousands of books and docs: the "German people" or "German leaders" were the ones who "forced Wilhelm II into exile, or " forced the autocrats to abdicate because they were angry" or variations of that. Here is what they (usually) don't say (lie by omission): That it was the own side which had previously coerced other German leaders like Max von Baden into forcing the German government out of office, because that was a condition for armistice negotiations to take place.
Here is the timeline of events during 1918:
1) Coerce German leaders to topple the current Berlin government.
2) German leaders realizing there was no alternative to stop the war, than to topple the current Berlin government.
3) Omit step 1) for the "popular narrative of WW1", or pretend it never happened, and then write history that pleases the own feelings by simply pinning the flag on the timeline, saying that the history of that event started on the day chosen by the writers of history. In order to find out what really happened, an interested history fan would have to delve into very specific books that cover the entire series of events, to find out the details. But, who does that? Which popular history doc we "see on TV" ever does that?
From the primary source:
"The President would deem himself lacking in candor did he not point out in the frankest possible terms the reason why extraordinary safeguards must be demanded. Significant and important as the constitutional changes seem to be which are spoken of by the German Foreign Secretary in his note of the 20th of October, it does not appear that the principle of a government responsible to the German people has yet been fully worked out or that any guarantees either exist or are in contemplation that the alterations of principle and of practice now partially agreed upon will be permanent. Moreover, it does not appear that the heart of the present difficulty has been reached. It may be that future wars have been brought under the control of the German people, but the present war has not been; and it is with the present war that we are dealing. It is evident that the German people have no means of commanding the acquiescence of the military authorities of the empire in the popular will; that the power of the King of Prussia to control the policy of the empire is unimpaired; that the determining initiative still remains with those who have hitherto been the masters of Germany. Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action, the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the world do not and cannot trust the word of those who have hitherto been the masters of German policy, and to point out once more that in concluding peace and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany."
Source: International Notes: Diplomatic Notes, Prepared By Allan Westcott, Ph. D., Instructor, U. S. Naval Academy, November 1918 Proceedings Vol. 44/11/189
Washington DC power mongers employ old Roman techniques of power, including the "morphing" of systems which favor the own ideological expansionist goals, and one of these old Roman techniques is divide-and-rule. In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Not only Germany was divided, but also Europe was divided with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in popular narratives composed mostly of "being friends" even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, so by 1945 the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, its time to delve into the "philosophy" of innocent victims dying as a result of policy decisions they were not consulted about. Like Japanese children, 5-year olds, fried nice a crispy in a nuclear holocaust?
Sooooo......
"Since World War II, during a supposed golden age of peace, the United States military has killed or helped kill some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 84 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. The United States is responsible for the deaths of 5 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and over 1 million just since 2003 in Iraq.
Since 2001, the United States has been systematically destroying a region of the globe, bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, not to mention the Philippines. The United States has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces in three-quarters of them."
Did the billions of people living in these places deserve what they got?
Answer the question, or remain silent...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If Israel didn't exist, the USA would have to invent it." -- Joe Biden.
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages.
In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era instruments of POWER), but cannot be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
POWER. DOESN'T. CARE.
Maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are trapped in a "divide and rule world", and it has been all about PROFITS and CONTROL over the people.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"When two neighbouring countries fight each other, just know the USA visited one." - Nelson Mandela (Region: Southern Africa/Big picture timestamp: Cold War).
The statement is not quite correct.
When two neighbours fight each other, just know that an empire has been there previously.
It's the old joke that "If two fish are fighting, the British Empire has been there."
It is a truism about imperialism in general, and how divide-and-rule works.
Set up neighbours against each other, using a variety of ever-consistent techniques and strategies. With absolute certainty, the tribal leaders of Europe joked the same way about the Roman Empire, openly flaunting their "Pax Romana" whilst in the background covertly favoring one "neighbor", whilst setting them up against the others, using whatever reasoning it wanted.
Outsiders will come to a state (also covertly politically or via NGOs as the strategy of "cultural- and political capture"), and these outsiders try to lay down the foundation for division by setting up the "new-found friend" against its neighbours and if it is unsuccessful in one "state" (status quo), it will simply go to the neighbours and try the same. The more neighbours, the more chances of a successful division of powers, which is beneficial to the "divider". Because if these neighbours all end up fighting, the "divider" vacuums off gains (of various kinds) in the background. Such implemented and leveraged divisions do not necessarily stem from evil intent, since most of the participants in a divide-and-rule strategy have absolutely no idea that they have become "actors" in a great game, the scope of which they remain ignorant of. Even those with good intentions (political doves) can create division.
No amount of agreements, accords, negotiation or skills will ever stop the "dividers", for nothing they sign will stop their divisive ways.
Any resources-rich region of the planet like the Ukraine or West Asia, where the interests run deep, is a perfect example of the above, which is globally practiced today. The only thing which changed between the Roman Empire and the current times is technology, which vastly shrunk the world and the REACH of the controlling empire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickegruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
1
-
So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage.
Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating families. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Never a "price tag" for own actions...
Right?
WRONG
Brits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends".
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"...
And after the war ended?
They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946).
Did they ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not.
Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next.
Hop, hop, hop...into extinction.
Sad...
A "nation" which needs to bomb women and kids to "have hope" or inspiration even during hard times, does not deserve to "rule the world".
The post-WW2 bankrupcy was not only financial, but also moral...
Good riddance to "ruling the world" then.
1
-
1
-
PragerU is not telling the whole story.
They are using a propaganda method called "lying by omitting".
Here is what happened, and the timeline is important.
It is Miss Chow who "started it" by wanting to restrict fellow Americans' unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and happiness" and trying to impose her own convictions onto others .
Trying to restrict another American's rights, not based on a factual argument (say, restricting gun rights because of the many deaths), but using one's own "feelings" is un-American.
That means not understanding basic rights , as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
She didn't choose for herself.
She made a political decision (simulated of course) that impacted others and that goes against the spirit it of separation of church and state as desired by the founding fathers.
She did not only "abstain", which is her right to do.
She hid behind her Bible, stating that is what made her choose the way she did. Obviously, it is her own convictions, but she blames her "god"...
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Johnny the Boy There has been a so-called War on Drugs going on for the last 50 years or so, costing the US taxpayer 50 billion dollars every year.
Don't you even know about this low key "war" going on?
Report by Davie Doward
Call off war on drugs, leader of Guatemala tells the west
Otto Pérez Molina says regulated narcotics market must be introduced to forestall threat to democracy from drug cartels.
Sat 19 Jan 2013 21.03 GMT
First published on Sat 19 Jan 2013
"The west's "war on drugs" has failed and continuing with prohibition will only cost more lives, the Guatemalan president, Otto Pérez Molina, declares in an interview in the Observer.
In a further sign that the global consensus on drugs is fragmenting, Pérez Molina will use a debate at this week's Davos forum in Switzerland to attack the international community for its support for prohibition, and to call for a regulated narcotics market.
"I believe western countries fail to understand the reality that countries such as Guatemala and those of Central America have to live in," said Pérez Molina. "There has been plenty of talk, but no effective response. I believe, ultimately, that this is due to a lack of understanding on the part of western countries."
Don't you even know any of this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Luies Wartin Why?
Would you mind adding an explanation? If not, it's only an opinion, and you know what they say about opinions, right?
Opinions are like arseholes....everybody's got one 😂😂😂
The UN today is 100% fair, because the UN is actually a REFLECTION of the diversity on our planet today. ALL races, religions, nations and countries have a say.
Unlike the League of 1919, which was basically a white privilege "colonial Judea-Christian white man's club". You're not white, or a white bootlicker, you just didn't get in and make decisions...too bad. Right?
(So you see, Luies, that's how you substantiate an 'opinion' with an explanation to make it valid)
You're not a white supremacist by any chance, are you?
1
-
Luies Wartin A short alternative history of Goa, to explain to you why YOU are wrong...
Let's say it's 1919, and a group of white ideologues decide they are "the lost tribe of Goa", and organize their "return" with the help of the equally white League of Nations at the time, and because India is a British colony, and Indians are only 2nd class on the pecking order of races...
These supporters of the "Lost tribe of Goa" (90% white, 10% Indian DNA) arrive by the millions, displacing and oppressing the people already living there. They create elitist communes, drive the locals off their land...locals who have lived on this land for generations, with the aid of shitloads of money and the guns they bring. They also use terror to suppress any objection the locals have (google Irgun, Lehi, Haganah)...
In 1948, the new state of India has had enough of this, and invades. But the whites already living in Goa are stronger, and win...
Then the whites scream "YOU ATTACKED US...BOO...HOO..."
Note here, that these whites have "friends in high places", and the international newspapers print distorted versions of the facts, exaggerating every single "Indian act of aggression", while virtually ignoring everything the white invaders do.
What do you think will happen?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Alexthesauceman You are confusing "correlation" with "causation".
Here's your correlation...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html#map
[if you don't trust the NY Times, look for another map with major corona hubs]
Now, overlay the biggest US airports. New York, Atlanta, Miami, L.A., San Francisco, etc. and BINGO.
That Utah is more rural, has little to do with the current situation.
Lockdown, or else I'll come back to this very conversation in 3 weeks, and ask you how things are going...
Sleep tight....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How did the USA go from an obscure colony to the world's nr.1 in the space of a relatively short time.
To discover how it happened in "a blink of an eye" on the timeline of modern history, let's go next level.
The impact of strategies on history.
These strategies are universal, and it therefore does not matter who one quotes, in which era, or what level of society or politics one refers to (micro- v. macro level dynamics in hierarchies).
"Observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership." Deng Xiaoping
To loosely quote strategy, Washington DC just had to wait long enough until their rivals messed up.
On the "empires"-level the USA's strategy starting around 1900 was fairly simple:
1) keep European powers as "divided" as possible, implemented by whatever means possible, but mainly using favoratism.
2) wait for ALL the others to fail.
Would such a strategy, whether planned or the unintentional effect of prior actions guarantee a success? Answer: NO
There is never a guarantee for anything in strategy, but if one has the geographical advantage (distance from squibbling Europeans, coupled with an own rising population, raw materials, a rapidly gathering industrial/financial base, increased education = increased innovation, all constituting "power"), then the US elites in their "preferred system" of corporatism could simply sit it out.
What was effected by favoratism was a "pecking order" of "friends" with access to Washington DC.
It does not matter how one justifies this political pecking order, because "justified" = an appeal to emotion = difficult to objectify.
What is important, is THAT a pecking order of European powers with access to Washington DC was established over a relatively short time around the year 1900.
Note here: A little-known detail is that one of the first US choices in this "pecking order" of European powers was actually Imperial Russia (by the Theodore Roosevelt administration). Why would the USA possibly "favor" Russia as a "choice"?
My suggestion: Look at a map every now and then, and consider the European balance of power at the times, and the aims and goals of these European powers at the time...
Is this an unimportant little detail, because it "did not happen"? No, this is VERY important, because it reveals strategies.
Simply saying "it did not happen, therefore it is not important" is a gross misrepresentation of history, which will then result in a gross misrepresentation of current events.
Anyway.
Any European division = a so-called "win - win" for the USA.
To the USA it did not matter what happened in Europe.
Whether Europeans ended up happily singing Kumbayah, or tore each other to shreds...it would be a "win" for somebody in the American Century. As long as there was no common European policy or overly powerful alliance in a comprehensive European security agreement (of sorts) which could potentially be directed at US plans to expand, there was nothing on the "elite"-level in the USA to worry about...
Note also that all of the above solely deals with the "elite"-level, so there is no need for anybody to feel personally offended.
Since no elites ever asked the "average American", there is also no need for any "average American" to feel offended on behalf of these decision makers, unless they choose to be. Also true, for all historical and current events, and for all citizens of all states.
1
-
1
-
@AlshainFR Yes, in the "little world" of the average Joe, Jack, Fritz, Alaine, Igor, and Guisseppe, it's a small world, with many emotional aspects...
The big picture...and how the little piece of the puzzle called "Mers el Kebir" fit into it.
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying a continental power or dissing it, was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings.
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "divide and rule"-strategy or technique has a pretty long history in the Levant, which had been a desirable crossroads of civilizations ever since ancient times (land route connecting continents/systems) with changing POWERS implementing the strategy as time passed. If one wishes to understand history, one first has to familiarize oneself with strategies of power. If not, one WILL get misguided, distracted, and fooled into cheering for "imperialism", even whilst thinking one is cheering for "freedom and democracy", or something else...
The fact that one does not like an observed event (like = an emotion), does not mean the observed event does/did not take place.
Note that in order to play the game of "divide and rule", it needs a geographical/physical advantage, and POWER.
No POWER, no games...
In a more worldly sense.
As far as systems and strategies are concerned.
The 15 million people initially injected as "anchor state" (strategy) into the Levant, by an empire after WW1, are not going to rule/dominate the Levant.
Such a small number is always a "tail", and not the "dog".
The tail (lesser power) does NOT wag the dog (greater power).
That is just an easily chanted slogan, created by the dividers, in search of scapegoats for the slogan chanters/banner wavers.
It is a myth and a tool of deception and misdirection, by those who truly wish to rule by division. The ruling class. The elites, or the "1%-ters", the "$uperhubs", or whatever one wishes to call such a headless mass, united by their interests (§§§footnote).
In the real world, it is the "dogs" of POWER, who "wag the tails".
Modern Israel is a tool, once created by an Empire for a specific purpose, just like every other ME country was created for a purpose.
The sooner ALL these divided Semites in the Levant realize this, the better it will be for ALL Semites. They are ALL tools.
As a guideline, the first tentative examples of African leaders finally realizing the POWER of the "divide and rule"-technique is out there. This technique, same as 100 and 200 and 2,000 years ago uses a multitude of "carrots and sticks": the outside POWER mis/uses differences in race, religion, ethnicity, and uses the appeals to the leaders here in the form of "greed", personal advantages, or promises, or using the "shame game", etc. Whatever works in the desired area in which "disunity" is the goal. The example of African leaders standing united, and repulsing such outside attempts, can be studied. The initial positive observation, is not final though: the "dividers" will return. They will come back, and push, and push, and push until the first weakness appears, which will then be exploited...
"Divide and rule" is in politics and international relations, what nukes are in warfare.
AGE OF EUROPEAN IMPERIALISM
Israel, the artificial entity, had never been created by a god, never mind what the idealogues proclaim. In antiquity it was created by strategists, employing amongst other strategies, the "divide and rule"-technique to inch forward towards the "milk and honey"-land belonging to others already living there, while being the favorites of a god in an ideology. Thousands of years later during WW1 it was recreated by a very worldly empire, Great Britain, employing the "divide and rule"-technique. The goals and aims of this empire, acting in conjunction with France, tacidly nodded of by Washington DC, were very earthly: to rule, and keep the POWER it had amassed as a result of a previous lucky GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE vis-a-vis its European neighbors. For the British Empire starting around 1917: to use mass-immigration as a tool of division as they did all over their empire. Lines were drawn, and rulers imposed onto the people living here, who were never asked as a collective. Whether it was the White Highlands (Kenya) or Palestine, these white immigrants brandished their newly found power (as the favorites of an empire). In other cases (Fiji, for example) mass-immigration of other subjects were used to cause disruption within the original indigenous power structures. This power of the hegemony was transformed into pieces of paper (deeds) granting CHOSEN FAVORITES property in a promised land, and these new favorites/best friends in the form of mass-immigration would then, in return, protect the British Empire's interests. In the Levant, it was the very precious Suez Canal from the threat of potential attacks by land armies, from the north...because the British Empire did as it always did. Create useful tools in a "barrier state" (strategy), for its own perceived potential future gain.
That of the automatic ally (strategy).
If the Levant was attacked by a northern empire on the way to Egypt/Suez as per Heartland Theory (1904), via land routes where the mighty Royal Navy was useless, the "poor little friends" which had previously been strategically set up as homelands/states, would be defended. Of course, because the Empire cared so much about "poor people"...
The motivations for empires in the beginnings at this watershed of history for the Levant (1917) can be linked to the motivations for empires today.
THE DAWN OF MODERN CIVILIZATIONS
In the Bible, the original divider of mankind in the Levant, was the figure God (Old Testament).
Whether one believes in this god or not, doesn't matter. In a systemic analysis, Jesus the philosopher (New Testament) actually OPPOSED his (so-called) father's form of authoritarian and often brutal rule (Old Testament). In antiquity, the figure God had used the "divide and rule"-strategy on and over the rest of mankind in the Levant. From the position of ultimate POWER, God had chosen favorites, and throughout the Old Testament (as a historical series of events) continued to make rulings and grant miracles in the favor of his chosen. Yikes, God even nuked Sodom and Gomorrha in order to make living space for his chosen (lol, just kidding). On a sideline, also the invention of propaganda: These inhabitants were the collective "evil outgroup", who also collectively "deserved to die".
Whatever...
Further indicators: God favored "ruler types" (Old Testament/top down rule) like Moses. No doubt, in a realist analysis, strategists like Moses were most likely the inventor of the SINGLE HEGEMONY as a SOLE God with the all seeing eye, to create unity. To avoid people from creating a miriad of depictions and minor gods, and get constantly distracted by a plethora of personal favorite foreign gods in the lands they were dispered into, and who would end up dancing around idols...
Poor Moses must have been frustrated by his followers' insatiable appetite for entertainment, divisive squabbles, tribal infighting, family fueds, and other distractions from the endsieg: the land of milk and honey they all dreamed of as settler colonists on the move.
THE ROMAN EMPIRE
According to the legacy, Jesus approached commoners (New Testament/bottom up unity).
The polar opposite of God of the Old Testament (see above).
Around the year "0", The Roman Empire had the POWER in the Med, and it had amassed this power as a result of a previous lucky GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE vis-a-vis its neighbors in the Mediterranean. A technological and organisational edge gave it that slight advantage of reach: While it could "reach" all neighbors in the Med, these neighbors could not "reach" Rome, at least for the time being. That would change later as the balance of power shifted.
Around the year 0, one can consider Jesus as the "prototype Hippy" teaching love and charity, in other words the Monty Python take on the observed events, or one can see him as a talented strategist who intended to take on the might of the Roman Empire. Actual evidence then favors a combination of both (the "peaceful revolution" against the Roman Empire): crimes against the state, like sedition, were usually punished by crucifiction. The irony of the Roman Empire killing Jesus, is that they later took the resulting religion as a state religion, in efforts to bring unity to the crumbling empire, by replacing a miriad of gods and resorting to the "one god" as single hegemony over all (state religion). The intention to use an ideology to create unity was too little, too late to save a crumbling empire...
Whether such events mentioned on clay tablets, or scrolls, were actual events, or inventions by philosophers to explain strategies, or simply true at some core and then added onto as the ages passed, to become the well-honed stories we read today, is not even important in any systemic analysis. As I always say, historians and politicians can hardly agree on what happened last week, let alone 2,000 years ago, or 4,000 years ago.
Therefore, best to reduce everything to the tier of "systems/strategies" in order to discover what really happened.
THE END
-------------------------
§§§footnote
How these "headless elites" unite for temporary alliances, see for example, amongst the many other sources, Sandra Navidi/$uperhubs
Of course, a repeat of the "old boys clubs" or the "halls of power" reality of politics, and about how deals are made OUTSIDE of the control of democratic means.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
True.
Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised. "Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
John A. Uhm...historically seen, how about ACTUALLY USING nukes?
And yes, threatening the use of nukes actually was the backbone of the entire Cold War.
So yes. If you threaten the use of nukes, constantly invade, meddle, impose governments, CIA covert opps, wars for oil, strong arm political tactics, intrigues, intimate, instigation, meddling...don't be surprised if smaller nations strive for a nuclear arsenal in RESPONSE to what has actually happened the last 100 years or so.
History is causal.
That's all I'm saying....
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Yes I did.
Germany was not the only nation "sold out" at Versailles.
There were many others, incl. The Ukraine.
From wiki:
"Thus Ukrainian representatives Arnold Margolin and Teofil Okunevsky had high hopes for American mission, but in the end found it even more categorical than French and British:
This meeting, which took place on June 30, made a tremendous impression on both Okunevsky and me. Lansing showed complete ignorance of the situation and blind faith in Kolchak and Denikin. He categorically insisted that the Ukrainian government recognise Kolchak as the supreme ruler and leader of all anti-Bolshevik armies. When it came to the Wilson principles, the application of which was predetermined in relation to the peoples of the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy, Lansing said that he knew only about the single Russian people and that the only way to restore Russia was a federation modeled on the United States. When I tried to prove to him that the example of the United States testifies to the need for the preliminary existence of separate states as subjects for any possible agreements between them in the future, he evaded answering and began again stubbornly urging us to recognise Kolchak. [...] Thats how in reality these principles were implemented. USA supported Kolchak, England — Denikin and Yudenich, France — Galler... Only Petliura was left without any support.
— Arnold Margolin, Ukraine and Policy of the Entente (Notes of Jew and Citizen)"
Too bad they didn't honor the principles of the "14 points", but started to (typically human) "watering it down" to suite predetermined criteria.
20 years later, they would all suffer the consequences of their duplicity.
Yes, also your country's citizens would suffer, if where you live today fought in WW2.
There were no "winners". Unless you consider a few parades and speeches as "winning, so much winning, tired of all the winning".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
LOL...nope. He dealt with stolen property. You see, he got it from this English guy James, who knocked in the head of the previous owner called Omar or something, who was from Turkey. This dude Omar also knocked the head of some Italian, guy...but that was so long ago I honestly don't remember...
So, dealing with stolen property is now an acceptable practice?
Oh, and not "bought".
Try "down payment".
Jewish organisations only "bought" 6% of the from the rightful owners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine
Yup. Imagine if I "buy" your car, give you 6% of the value, and then simply take off...LOL.
Nice try though...
So, after a few years, I arrive on the scene with my (LOL) "legal car", new mags, plush seat, new paintjob...and EVERYBODY pats my back about how great it looks...
It seems as if there are a lot of things your "teachers" never told you.
1
-
10:00 minutes
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertmoore6149 No, what London was doing was claim to be the "guarantor of peace" in Europe on one side...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Britannica
...whilst on the other secretly choose sides in another, contradictory policy...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Or, openly and proudly pat its own back as a "peacekeeper", but secretly contradict that mission with a backroom policy, made by a few lords, which is aimed at the continent's strongest power, irrelevant of right or wrong.
That's duplicitous in my books.
Sorry London.
No "goody two shoes for you" ;-)
No, obviously London didn't "owe" anybody on the continent anything.
It owed its own people peace, but gave them death and misery and a soon to be ruined Empire.
Don't try to point elsewhere or look for splinters in the eyes of others. There was only London to blame for that (as indeed all nations only have their own leaders to blame apart from Belgium, the only real victim).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SeasiderPhil In the leadup to WW1, there was another "new power", whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/661734.shtml
Or "maybe they won't notice if we sneak up on them..."
The London lords said, "Nah...want to keep my place in the sun."
Meanwhile, some were very good at "biding time" and "keeping a low profile"...
https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-american-century-what-was-really-behind-it
...until they were strong enough to eclipse "the old", and not to care anymore.
With the "leverage" geography gave them (distance from squabbling Europeans), plus a drastically increasing power, as technology shrunk the world, they knew they would just have to wait long enough until the eternally squabbling Europeans had torn themselves to shreds.
Because in the arsenals of M-A-I-N there was another "weapon".
Well-known at the time, and formulated into words by John Quincy Adams: "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country: One is by sword and one is by debt."
Washington DC: If your rivals are making a mistake, don't interrupt them...
1
-
@MyDogmatix Nah.
Nothing to do with "dark matter".
Rather own leaders with a lack of "grey matter", or "working brain cells".
Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised. "Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
1
-
In the leadup to WW1 and WW2, there was another "new power", whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership..."
While European countries were squabbling and infighting, US leaders were very good at "biding time" and "keeping a low profile until they were strong enough to eclipse "the old", and not to care anymore.
[Search for "the American Century" agenda of the Washington DC elites]
With the leverage geography gave them (distance from squabbling Europeans), plus a drastically increasing power, as technology shrunk the world, they knew they would just have to wait long enough until the eternally squabbling Europeans had torn themselves to shreds.
Because in the arsenals of the world there was another "weapon".
Well-known at the time, and formulated into words by John Quincy Adams: "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country: One is by sword and one is by debt."
Washington DC: If your rivals are making a mistake, don't interrupt them...
1
-
1
-
This is nothing new. For 100 years, settler colonists (Irgun, Lehi, Palmach, etc.) cooperating with the hegemon, carried out such practices of harassment, trying to coerce the original inhabitants to flee so they could occupy the land.
A hundred years ago the British Empire dispatched psychos like Orde Wingate (Special Night Squads) who took pleasure in random shootings, or waterboarding opposition to the British Empire in oil, sending the tortured back to their villages to report about the actions of their oppressors.
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron Bushell have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined.
Don't delay.
Start today.
1
-
1
-
Division "rules" the world. AI will just be just another tool to implement more division.
"Who rules?", is the wrong question.
Ask "What rules?" and you gain answers on many tiers. From the very bottom tier (society) to the very top (IR).
For those who can divide all others, but keep the POWER in an ingroup, will rule over others.
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors. One could state that the dividers thrive by manufacturing consent within the own ingroup, while at the same time manufacturing dissent on those intended to be the "divided," the outgroup.
EXAMPLE: SETTLER COLONIALISM
The last 500 years of European/white settler colonialism as a subsection of the divide-and-rule technique. The strategy was "farms/forts" and a systemic, slow advance into the lands of ingenious peoples all over the world. Same happened in North America, Australia, New Zealand, the Levant, South America, Southern Africa, etc.
Broken promises, broken treaties, looking for excuses to make the next 'step' (ratchet principle). The only places the strategy of slow ponderous expansion failed was where the local systems were too numerous or organized (East Asia). The "template" might have various regional differences, but the end effect is always the same. Slow, step-by-step advance of the own ideology, economic systems, corporations and political power.
One thing is sure, among all the lies: the "dividers" will tell you that you are on the "right side", as long as you follow the dividers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are you a citizen of the world, and wish to contribute a small share to end the grip the global elites have on the narrative of history?
Are you American, or European? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from the multitude of military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any platform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Why do we know this? Because good people have been voting, and posting, and debating, and using their freedom of speech, and protesting for hundreds of years, but the grip the elites have on the plebs has NEVER changed.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unraveling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting all international big brands.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small local companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever and whenever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone," or "but, but, but...your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be perfect...
Methodology: JDI and make it a long term lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk trend, because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate interests. Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small local companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Do you wish to fight meddling globalist empires?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influential GLOBAL ELITES only REALLY start "caring" (sic.) when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
Historically in East Asia, India and China were the biggest losers as outsiders came with the divide-and-rule technique of power (Era of Western Imperialism).
If one understands what happened to China during their "Century of Humiliation," means that one then already has the template to understand what is happening today. One can use the historical "template" and apply it in the same manner.
What happened to China during that era, is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today. Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the little minions benefiting from the outside POWER of imperialism to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) crises into "eternal problems," sit by and do nothing as problems foment into violence, revolutions, and wars, or carry out other forms of privatized interference (corporatism) under government protection, or without. Whatever works, details really REALLY DON'T MATTER. Once "fomented troubles" rise out of hand, claim to "just want peace." Then use the little minions as favourites (favouritism = a technique within the "divide and rule" strategy of power) to destabilize an entire region, steer them against other weaker entities, and/or employ them as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regions as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc.
Whatever works for the desired region to be divided/conquered or where CONTROL and domination is required for the economic systems of gain.
There is no way that current day Chinese leaders will not have learnt their very own historical lesson, and allow their very own history to repeat/rhyme, and allow such outside meddling in the own systems to gain traction, AGAIN for a second time.
Every nation or state has its own "Never again!"
European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonial ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon. These citizens, usually around 50% of entire populations, suffer directly ("heating or eating"), or indirectly (soaring inflation), these are all "effects," not to be confused with "causes" (see concept of retro causality, one of the most easily misused ways to skew a timeline of events). Some eventually even end up in the muddy trenches.
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their (temporary) GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
With re. to how tools are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also, that a "plan" and the strategy to effect the plan, are two different things.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as the USA implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combatted by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today, and there is MORE than sufficient evidence for this. Outsiders intent on playing the game, use the revolutionary spirit, in order to hop onto useful dissent, strengthen it, and insert levers which they can pry open to gain own advantages. Beijing is certainly 100% aware of this, so everything you are witnessing today is a political EFFECT, not a political "cause" as some leaders wish to mislead us towards.
Everything you are being told about Berlin, in stages after 1894, 1904, 1907, and 1912, with gathering momentum, were EFFECTS, not CAUSES. That was, based on observation, outside powers with the intention to "divide and rule" Europe, by encroaching/encircling the major continental power, which has never changed throughout recent modern history. The ONLY factor which changed over the last few centuries, was the "major continental power" which had to be CONTROLLED by the outside power who wanted a competitive advantage. The historical parallel, is the "Chinese Century of Shame"-historicity, and is well-known at least to the 1.4 billion inhabitants of China today. Certainly, they also do not wish to become "carved up" and ruled over by outsiders again, for a second time. The template therefore predicts a similar outcome, that of the more encroachment/encirclement, the more likeliness of the "breakout attempt" in some possible future.
Obvious solution for a more stable world, stop the encroachment/encirclement.
Both historically (post-1900) as well as our recent history (post-2000) there seems little incentive for those with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to do so, but rather the repeated attempts to search for tools to do such encroachment/encirclement FOR the outside power/s intent on gain.
Empires do not become dominant because they hand out candy and bouquets of flowers, as most realists are fully aware of, therefore the wise advice to always keep a just/wise "balance of powers. If not, fail.
Power flows to where the attention goes first, in geopolitics, in the form of political policies.
These can be studied by looking at the events themselves, not what another human being tells you (incl. this essay, which doesn't tell you anything, but implores you to start focusing on the well-known events themselves, from which one can then infer the underlying hidden policies, strategies, or objectives).
If you live in East Asia, beware of the "dividers".
The hawks will come looking for "buck catchers" and the doves will disguise it as the "helping friends"-narrative = i.e. the template of modern western imperialism. Hawks and doves working in close unison, although stated as being opposite poles.
They WILL come to you, same way as they came to the Ukraine, following the 1990s.
China has "understood".
India thinks it can "play the game" like France once did in Europe (becoming a "buck catcher" for the British Empire and USA), post-1900.
Do you agree with this macro analysis?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's always never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose.
Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever thought about what such a policy meant?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be written off...
It means these slimy deceitful Albions expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
To hell with them.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy..."
Me: ROFL
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary lines drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that "faraway empires" would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? It looks very interesting. Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies...
How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets they have. Want some..."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up. Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal.
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SsSs RoBbSs OK, so let's clarify a few things.
The OP made that point = first comment
TYT never made that point. In case you say so, then where and when?
Fact: TYT showed a segment of FOX News in which the anchor is "victim blaming" Weinstein's victims, saying they are themselves to blame, or at least partly to blame [again, there is no "child sexual abuse" mentioned anywhere]
The OP's objection to TYT is therefore wrong, because there is no false equivalency. For that, there needs to be one first.
Fact: the OP created this.
Fact: TYT never made such a comparison.
Therefore, the following is an entirely different discussion:
You wish to discuss your own original objection about it being the women in search of career opportunities own fault, because of "voluntarily going along for the ride,in return for a great job" (sic.).
Let's turn this around:
Say you are the one who has put 2 kids in college, paying for a house, a your wife just got fired. Let's say the only way save your house and your kids education was a raise....and your boss is an ugly 70-year hag demanding "a little favor in return"....and knowing your predicament threatens a demotion and lower salary -- take it or leave it.
What would you do?
And if you did go along "voluntarily", is it then also entirely your own fault, or would you see "abuse of power" (of your boss) with completely different eyes?
1
-
“Many of us like to ask ourselves, "What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide? The answer is, you're doing it. Right now.” ― Aaron Bushnell
Nobody can expect another human being to carry out such a level of self-sacrifice.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unraveling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting all international big brands.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small local companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever and whenever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get side-lined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone," or "but, but, but...your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be perfect...
Ghandi told the Empire to "Quit India" and we must tell the USA/collective West to "Quit the World."
Methodology: Make it a long term lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk trend, because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate interests. Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small local companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Do you wish to fight meddling globalist empires?
If those who have the money use their competitive advantages to spread lies and misdirection via the MSM, we must use our numbers to spread the truth of what is happening.
Join us, because the international cross-border politically influential GLOBAL ELITES only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
As long as Europeans see their European Civil War (1914-45 see footnote) as a battle between good and bad they will keep on losing.
The Chinese leadership figured out that their "Century of Humiliation" (1837-1947) needed to end, by FIRST kicking the outsiders and their "interest models" out.
As long as Europeans (collective concept) keep on thinking in terms of words rather than concepts they will remain tools of the higher power. As long as Europeans keep on thinking in terms of "good/bad", or "me/you" or "us/them" or "this language/that language!, or any other DIVISIONS, rather than "Europeans/outsiders" they will remain tools of outside "dividers".
Same counts for the Arabian Peninsula, and anywhere else on the planet.
Hegel — 'History teaches us that man learns nothing from history.'
Studying history only teaches you how man-made systems of power justify their own wrongdoing.
----
Footnote:
In Western narratives, from the Anglo-Saxon/Eurocentric world view, a war inside East Asia concerning a variety of ethnic, religious and linguistically related peoples is known as a "civil war", but for the same historians and storytellers a war in Europe between a variety of ethnic, religious, and linguistically related peoples is a "world war". This is the logic of the "world according to the West" (USA/collective West), telling the rest of the world that "our issue is your issue, but your issue is your issue" just like they have done these past 500 years, and it's "just how it is" and the "rules based order".
Well, it's not 1600, or 1700, or 1800, or 1900, or even the year 2000 anymore.
Arrogance of power is only arrogance of power, as long as one has the power.
Once the "power" is missing, one is stuck with one's arrogance.
1
-
1
-
Every American has the unalienable right to life, liberty and happiness, and may gather in groups freely, and nobody can stop them from doing so.
As legal representation, Chow should simply have voted or abstained, just like everybody else who voted did.
Everybody else simply voted, and restrained from giving long winded (the full "sermon" she made is an entire page) personal accounts of why they chose to vote a certain way. Nobody cares about her personal life choices, and don't want to be constantly preached to about her personal choices, and that her personal way of life is the only "good, right, and true" way (quoting Chow).
In short, none of the other representatives chose to misuse their positions, as a platform to preach own personal beliefs and it is strange that only Christians ever do so...
Let's turn this around.
Imagine if this was an LGBTQ person telling Chow that she should abide with the LGBTQ way of life (personal choice) and tell her that the LGBTQ way of life is "good, right, and true"?
You see, nobody does that. They respect her choices, and don't preach to her, constantly reminding her that her belief (an invisible man in the sky) is silly...
1
-
I see.... The USA has the most powerful "weapon" on its side: feelings.
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jameson-d8x British elites did not advocate war "because of Belgium", but because of a policy the lords in London had decided upon loooong before the Kaiser was "building ships", and "wanted colonies".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
A policy called Balance of Power, which practically dictated that GB would always join the weaker side, irrelevant of "right or wrong", and the only way GB could have realistically stayed out of the continental war about to unfold, was to abstain from the selfappointed role of "balancer" for the continent.
It was British leaders, deciding in London, and this free choice had nothing to do with anything any continental leaders did, or didn't do.
Why did GB join WW1?
As simple as asking "Would GB have stayed out, under any circumstance?" To which the answer is no.
The choice of making an entire people an enemy by default, long before they had even done anything to deserve the status of "enemy", had far reaching effects...
1
-
1
-
@Jameson-d8x Well now that's kinda a long answer for the admittance that "yes, the British Policy of Balance of Power come first" ...oooops.
Now I guess you also thought that was GB involuntarily forced into WW2 to protect poor Belgians....lmao
As far as "poor Belgians" as Casus Belli for GB and the Empire....
First off: "poor Belgians" was an emotional argument, same as "WMDs" and "Saddam Hussein involved in 9/11" back in 2003....and its always the same people who are going to be fooled by it. The young, and the ignorant.
Belgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB.
In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
According to historians, the British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war", in other words, Belgium was Casus Belli.
Correct?
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". In other words, no invasion, no Casus Belli...
Also correct?
If A, then B.
If not A, then not B, is an actual premise in logic which one can even Google for more info, if so inclined...
Berlin therefore approached London, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/175713?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Foreign minister Grey refused, stammering and dragging his feet.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
Belgium was a so-called geostrategic barrier to ensure the Policy of Balance of Power, and protect the British Empire. GB fought WW1 for own interests, not the "safety of others" or any other emotional argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
PragerU is not telling the whole story.
They are using a propaganda method called "lying by omitting".
Here is what happened, and the timeline is important.
It is Miss Chow who "started it" by wanting to restrict fellow Americans' unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and happiness" and trying to impose her own convictions onto others .
Trying to restrict another American's rights, not based on a factual argument (say, restricting gun rights because of the many deaths), but using one's own "feelings" is un-American.
That means not understanding basic rights , as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
She didn't choose for herself.
She made a political decision (simulated of course) that impacted others and that goes against the spirit it of separation of church and state as desired by the founding fathers.
She did not only "abstain", which is her right to do.
She hid behind her Bible, stating that is what made her choose the way she did. Obviously, it is her own convictions, but she blames her "god"...
1
-
Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar.
Washington DC s strategy is constant, using a geographical position of power.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equilibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to, and gaslighting the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequilibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equilibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The "divide and control/rule/conquer"-world is intact. It is practically as old as modern civilisation, and has never been defeated. Those with true power will do their utmost to ensure that the "divide and rule"-world we live in today, will rule for all times, because the DIVIDERS win, if all others fail.
The divide-and-rule system is a formless headless global system composed of every imaginable race, religion, ethnicity, language group, class, creed as an "ingroup" of power. This ingroup which intends to DIVIDE emergent unity elsewhere, contains all forms of "personal conviction" as "-ism" imaginable, with only a little input from top tiers.
Their aim is division.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bluecapone You are dwelling off...
You started this comment with "nobody needs special rights" and "everybody already has equal rights".
Bull.
"At least one in five of those surveyed said they have been discriminated against in the process of applying for a job (20 percent), being paid equally or considered for a promotion (22 percent) or buying or renting a home (22 percent), the survey found.
In terms of education, among those in the LGBTQ community who applied for or attended college, 20 percent said they had experienced discrimination because of their gender identity or sexual orientation while applying or while at college."
As a good "Christian", I assume you don't care.
You feel posh with your special privileges, knowing full well that nobody can point at your personal convictions, and discriminate against you.
The other way around, you can discriminate.
Nice, "human being" huh?
[ps, it's not about religion, but personal convictions ]
1
-
1
-
@bluecapone Yes, the LGBTQ community has certainly faced a similar level of discrimination as Christianity historically also did.
The term "gay bashing" as a kind of sport for intolerant right-wingers is not a myth. In fact, it was very common when I grew up in the 1980s.
Linguistically and historically there is a difference between the words/terms gender and sex.
"In science, the general terms, "sex" refers to the biological differences between males and females, such as the genitalia and genetic differences. "
"Gender" refers to the role of a male or female in society, known as a gender role, or an individual's concept of themselves, or gender identity."
In short:
There are 2 sexes.
Gender is whatever the individual wants it to be.
It is up to society to accept or deny the gender role an individual choses while 'in pursuit of happiness".
For my part.
I don't care.
It's really such a small fraction, that it doesnt bother me, and even if there were more, it wouldnt bother me either.
I have no ideological stance against another human being pursuing happiness (within the laws of the land of course).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What most MSM and established historians seem to forget, whilst proudly advocating the "fighting for democracy" virtue signalling, is that it had been the democratic "liberal empires" (USA/GB) which had lain the foundation of Europe`s demise around the year 1900. From the position of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE which afforded the slight edge in power, which was then exploited by seeing to it that others where kept "down" and "out" of the reach of resources which were needed to succeed. These resources were controlled via that slight edge which geography afforded, at that was true at ALL times. It a systemic conclusion, which unlike all other theories out there, is true at ALL times, never mind how far one goes back into the past.
Those who carry out such "rule," are not going to tell us how they rule by division on ALL tiers, and how they have ruled by division on all tiers for thousands of years. It is about the oldest trick in the book, to rule by division from a position of POWER. They will tell us, their "good fools," that it is all about the good vs. the bad but guess what they are NOT telling us? They never state HOW they manage it.
The top tiers divide and rule, and this functions in one direction only: down, to the base, which is "we the people."
They divide us, but we have no way or means to divide them, the top tiers, in return.
Revealing capitalist gain systems, to put things in perspective a bit: "Mr. Brown, do you mean to tell me you would let (workers) work until they dropped dead?"
Corporate CEO Lewis H Brown: "Yes. We save a lot of money that way."
Source: Charles Roemer, a Johns Manville employee recalling what Brown said in a deposition. Topic: an already known deadly health risk posed by asbestos in the lung aka mesothelioma, and the associated almost 100-year lasting coverup attempts by DuPont, etc.
This is not just some obscure example out of context, or the proverbial anecdotal evidence, but as thousands of similar examples have shown, is systemic.
The disinformation playbook regarding coverups and corporate 101 of denial and business as usual, even against scientific evidence of the harm caused by own policies/products.
The Fake: Conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research.
The Blitz: Harass scientists who speak out with results or views inconvenient for industry.
The Diversion: Manufacture uncertainty about science where little or none exists.
The Screen: Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies.
The Fix: Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy.
These are all typical divide and rule strategies, which are employed on all tiers of systems intent on aggressive gain, and which are therefore typical of all systems of gain, including capitalist and democratic systems. The technique is more than adequately explained in the below comments section, and the similarities between the systems of "capitalism/corporatism" and "democracy/globalism" can be examined in meta studies. These systems are systemically infested by sociopaths and psychopaths of all kinds, who who put interests and profit first, above all else.
Key words for further research:
1) 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
2) Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
3) The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
4) Dr Namie's research revealing the "Four Bully Types"
A large portion of our fellow human beings perceive these as valid traits to achieve the own political and personal priorities. "Might is right", and "end justifies the means" are still axioms of so-called superiority. There is also no reason to believe that any other system which promises power, will not attract similar numbers of bullies and psychopaths.
Reality: Liberal democracies and capitalist gain models and the pleasing narratives they spread, attract psychos like moths to the flame, and most human beings wouldn't be able to spot a psycho even if their lives depended on it. Most human beings living in symbiosis of systems either don't have the skill to recognize bad actors, nor the inclination to remove them since it is tangentially beneficial to own favored systems which affords the own good life, or have become directly entrapped by the gain models (pyramidal shaped hierarchies) lead by such bad actors. It doesn't seem to bother sufficient decent people enough to make such management styles which lead to the direct and indirect deaths of millions around the world impossible (effect a stopper against such models de jure or de facto). Indeed, based on observation, and looking back in history it can therefore be concluded that such behavior is only given a slap on the wrist, and therefore continues in so-called "good empires". Studies have shown that models based on intent of gain have rates of people with psychopathic tendencies as high as 20%. Compare that reality to the average for a normal society, or usual non-gain models of cooperation, which is around a 1% psycho rate.
There is no reason to believe other models of intent of gain (like politics) do not have similar high rates of psychos.
All empires as collectives of individuals have by nature, psychopathic and bullying tendencies. Note that the Hollywood image of the psycho and the bully is far removed from reality. The unfortunate reality is that most psychopaths/bullies remain undetected, and undetectable, because they manipulate entire groups of non-psychos/non-bullies into following them as beneficiaries, who then start entire campaigns of coverups and deception themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and lose is closer to what happened.
DIVIDE AND CONTROL
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels, and any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain, simply needed to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. Once "divided", there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Some examples regarding the theory in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors would offer a foothold in Europe.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have such consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement after 1895, amongst other less "valuable" suitors, was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below). The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises made"...lol
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...lol.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics sterted with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947. It is alive and well. It has surrounded every aspect of power politics on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Same with the funding of opposing European leaders and states (for example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s).
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else, while "eating popcorn and chips"...
1
-
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” ― Edward Bernays, US propaganda expert (Book: Propaganda)
Or as George Carlin mused, "They OWN this place." They OWN you, enslaved your mind, dominate the way you think, via the supplied slogans you chant...
Here is what they tell you. There only needs to be that one "little war, over by Christmas", or that "one enemy defeated", or that "one system of bad guys removed" and then...then, there will be peace. Just ONE more "war to end all wars." Just a little more blood spilt some place far away. Only ONE more "enemy to defeat" and then you will enjoy the fruits of victory and eternal peace...
There is only ONE problem with this little story: The rulers have been telling it for a thousand years.
They lie. They deceive. The goal is what is happening now. ETERNAL war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tomuchbs1987
From the official election policy announcements:
"Selling Mexico’s presidential jet was part of a package of populist pledges that López Obrador – or Amlo, as he is best known – made ahead of his landslide election victory in July.
In line with his promise to rule with frugality and restraint, the 64-year-old leftist has promised to travel on commercial flights rather than a luxury aircraft for which he said Mexico had paid up to 8bn pesos ($392m) and cost 500m pesos a year to maintain.
On Friday, Amlo, who will be sworn in on 1 December, issued a global call out to potential purchasers in “every corner of the world”.
“I’d like to take advantage of this moment to send a message … to anyone who would like to buy the presidential plane,” he told reporters outside his Mexico City headquarters.
“If you want to buy it, I’ll deliver it personally. We’ll have a ceremony and you’ll be traveling in a very important plane. It’s not just about the price … it’s about the fame!”

Mexico's president-elect vows not to use private jet despite flight delay
Read more
Amlo’s other populist undertakings include opening the Los Pinos presidential palace to the public, slashing his own salary and those of other top government officials, getting rid of presidential bodyguards, and holding daily 7am press conferences where he will unveil details of what he calls his historic “transformation” of the country. “We are going to begin this government with very profound changes,” he told Friday’s press conference.
Amlo said proceeds from the auction of the presidential Boeing –commissioned in 2012 by former president Felipe Calderón – would be used “to benefit our people” and claimed the winner would be walking away with a steal. “It’s not just any old thing.”
1
-
@tomuchbs1987
From the election campaigning: "Selling Mexico’s presidential jet was part of a package of populist pledges that López Obrador – or Amlo, as he is best known – made ahead of his landslide election victory in July.
In line with his promise to rule with frugality and restraint, the 64-year-old leftist has promised to travel on commercial flights rather than a luxury aircraft for which he said Mexico had paid up to 8bn pesos ($392m) and cost 500m pesos a year to maintain.
On Friday, Amlo, who will be sworn in on 1 December, issued a global call out to potential purchasers in “every corner of the world”.
“I’d like to take advantage of this moment to send a message … to anyone who would like to buy the presidential plane,” he told reporters outside his Mexico City headquarters.
Amlo’s other populist undertakings include opening the Los Pinos presidential palace to the public, slashing his own salary and those of other top government officials, getting rid of presidential bodyguards, and holding daily 7am press conferences where he will unveil details of what he calls his historic “transformation” of the country. “We are going to begin this government with very profound changes,” he told Friday’s press conference.
Amlo said proceeds from the auction of the presidential Boeing –commissioned in 2012 by former president Felipe Calderón – would be used “to benefit our people” and claimed the winner would be walking away with a steal. “It’s not just any old thing.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How the USA got its foot in the door of European affairs.
"The Paris Economy Pact was an international economic agreement reached at the Paris Economic Conference, held from 14 June 1916 in Paris. The meeting, held at the height of World War I, included representatives of the Allied Powers: Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and Russia.[1] The pact was intended to isolate the Central Powers ... The Allied Powers envisioned isolating them through trade sanctions after the war. A standing body, the Comité permanent international d'action économique, based in Paris, was established to monitor the implementation of the pact."
Who, apart from the Central Powers, was also missing from the "deals made"?
A quick review reveals that not only the Central Powers were intended to become isolated and left at the mercy of "the winners".
Obviously, a quick review of those powers included in this "pact", united per treaty, not only threatened to overpower the USA economically as the post war powerhouse of the world, but also encroach on it geopolitically....ooooops.
[cont.] "The pact was of great concern to the American government, led by President Woodrow Wilson, which (sic.) 'saw the continued fragmentation of Europe to be a risk for continued conflict'.[2] US Secretary of State Robert Lansing asked the staff of the US embassy in Paris to monitor ... The issue of central concern to the United States was that the pact included schemes for the subsidization and the government ownership of manufacturing enterprises and the division of European markets for the pact participants."
Note, not only all European markets would be under the control of this new alliance, but also all of the defeated powers overseas territories and markets. Of course the "worried about poor Europeans" was simply the pretext. Of course a statement than one is "worried about people", sounds a lot better than stating one is worried about markets or influence.
Suggestion: Look at a map. If it is still not possible to envision US fears, simply paint all the powers (all of Europe, incl. colonial possessions and dominions) mentioned in red, and the USA in blue...
Wiki "The outcome of the Economic Conference foreshadowed the conflict between the United States and the Allies during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.[3] The past concern of the US government with the pact remains fossilized in the US Code, in Title 19, Section 1332(c), which gives the United States International Trade Commission the "power to investigate the Paris Economy Pact and similar organizations and arrangements in Europe." [wiki]
The price of greed.
As an effect of own greed, and the willpower of the so-called "winners" to rule and dominate the the world by excluding their neighbors, the opportunity was given for the USA to enter European affairs.
Like the famous image of the "vacuum cleaner salesman putting his foot in the door", Uncle Sam was not going to be kept outside of European affairs, and would never remove that "foothold" from it again...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "divide and rule"-strategy or technique has a pretty long history in the Levant, which had been a desirable crossroads of civilizations ever since ancient times (land route connecting continents/systems) with changing POWERS implementing the strategy as time passed. If one wishes to understand history, one first has to familiarize oneself with strategies of power. If not, one WILL get misguided, distracted, and fooled into cheering for "imperialism", even whilst thinking one is cheering for "freedom and democracy", or something else. Note that in order to play the game of "divide and rule", it needs a geographical/physical advantage, and POWER.
No POWER, no games...
In a more worldly sense. As far as systems and strategies are concerned. The 15 million people initially injected as "anchor state" (strategy) into the Levant, by an empire after WW1, are not going to rule/dominate the Levant.
Such a small number is always a "tail", and not the "dog".
The tail (lesser power) does NOT wag the dog (greater power). That is just an easily chanted slogan, created by the dividers, in search of scapegoats for the slogan chanters/banner wavers. It is a myth and a tool of deception and misdirection, by those who truly wish to rule by division. The ruling class. The elites, or the "1%-ters", the "$uperhubs", or whatever one wishes to call such a headless mass, united by their interests (§§§footnote).
In the real world, it is the "dogs" of POWER, who "wag the tails".
Modern Israel is a tool, once created by an Empire for a specific purpose, just like every other ME country was created for a purpose.
The sooner ALL these divided Semites in the Levant realize this, the better it will be for ALL Semites. They are ALL tools.
As a guideline how the "divide and rule"-strategy can be defeated, the first tentative examples of African leaders finally realizing the POWER of the "divide and rule"-technique is out there. This technique, same as 100 and 200 and 2,000 years ago uses a multitude of "carrots and sticks": the outside POWER mis/uses differences in race, religion, ethnicity, and uses the appeals to the leaders here in the form of "greed", personal advantages, or promises, or using the "shame game", etc. Whatever works in the desired area in which "disunity" is the goal. The example of African leaders standing united, and repulsing such outside attempts, can be studied. The initial positive observation, is not final though: the "dividers" will return. They will come back, and push, and push, and push until the first weakness appears, which will then be exploited...
"Divide and rule" is in politics and international relations, what nukes are in warfare.
AGE OF EUROPEAN IMPERIALISM
Israel, the artificial entity, had never been created by a god, never mind what the idealogues proclaim. In antiquity it was created by strategists, employing amongst other strategies, the "divide and rule"-technique to inch forward towards the "milk and honey"-land belonging to others already living there, while being the favorites of a god in an ideology. Thousands of years later during WW1 it was recreated by a very worldly empire, Great Britain, employing the "divide and rule"-technique. The goals and aims of this empire, acting in conjunction with France, tacidly nodded of by Washington DC, were very earthly: to rule, and keep the POWER it had amassed as a result of a previous lucky GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE vis-a-vis its European neighbors. For the British Empire starting around 1917: to use mass-immigration as a tool of division as they did all over their empire. Lines were drawn, and rulers imposed onto the people living here, who were never asked as a collective. Whether it was the White Highlands (Kenya) or Palestine, these white immigrants brandished their newly found power (as the favorites of an empire). In other cases (Fiji, for example) mass-immigration of other subjects were used to cause disruption within the original indigenous power structures. This power of the hegemony was transformed into pieces of paper (deeds) granting CHOSEN FAVORITES property in a promised land, and these new favorites/best friends in the form of mass-immigration would then, in return, protect the British Empire's interests. In the Levant, it was the very precious Suez Canal from the threat of potential attacks by land armies, from the north...because the British Empire did as it always did. Create useful tools in a "barrier state" (strategy), for its own perceived potential future gain. That of the automatic ally (strategy). If the Levant was attacked by a northern empire on the way to Egypt/Suez as per Heartland Theory (1904), via land routes where the mighty Royal Navy was useless, the "poor little friends" which had previously been strategically set up as homelands/states, would be defended. Of course, because the Empire cared so much about "poor people"...
The motivations for empires in the beginnings at this watershed of history for the Levant (1917) can be linked to the motivations for empires today.
TODAY
Whatever the outcome in Israel/Gaza in our immediate future might be, the dividers in Washington DC have already achieved their aim. The last "gift" these dividers in Washington DC gave their favorites, was East Jerusalem (Trump admin), simply handed over without asking the people who actually lived here what they wanted for themselves. Eurasia is divided into multiple "teams", all arguing with each other and pointing fingers, playing the blame game, unable to unite into greater powers. Today: The sooner ALL these "divided" people realize this, the better it will be for ALL the people. War is a great divider. Such divisions last generations. "Divide and rule" extends into each and every mind. Line-drawing does not only take place on maps, but it also goes straight though your Limbic system (brain/appeal to emotion) and from there straight through entire societies.
THE DAWN OF MODERN CIVILIZATIONS
In the Bible, the original divider of mankind in the Levant, was the figure God (Old Testament).
Whether one believes in this god or not, doesn't matter. In a systemic analysis, Jesus the philosopher (New Testament) actually OPPOSED his (so-called) father's form of authoritarian and often brutal rule (Old Testament). In antiquity, the figure God had used the "divide and rule"-strategy on and over the rest of mankind in the Levant. From the position of ultimate POWER, God had chosen favorites, and throughout the Old Testament (as a historical series of events) continued to make rulings and grant miracles in the favor of his chosen. Yikes, God even nuked Sodom and Gomorrha in order to make living space for his chosen (lol, just kidding). On a sideline, also the invention of propaganda: These inhabitants were the collective "evil outgroup", who also collectively "deserved to die".
Whatever...
Further indicators: God favored "ruler types" (Old Testament/top down rule) like Moses. No doubt, in a realist analysis, strategists like Moses were most likely the inventor of the SINGLE HEGEMONY as a SOLE God with the all seeing eye, to create unity. To avoid people from creating a miriad of depictions and minor gods, and get constantly distracted by a plethora of personal favorite foreign gods in the lands they were dispered into, and who would end up dancing around idols...
Poor Moses must have been frustrated by his followers' insatiable appetite for entertainment, divisive squabbles, tribal infighting, family fueds, and other distractions from the endsieg: the land of milk and honey they all dreamed of as settler colonists on the move.
THE ROMAN EMPIRE
According to the legacy, Jesus approached commoners (New Testament/bottom up unity).
The polar opposite of God of the Old Testament (see above).
Around the year "0", The Roman Empire had the POWER in the Med, and it had amassed this power as a result of a previous lucky GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE vis-a-vis its neighbors in the Mediterranean. A technological and organisational edge gave it that slight advantage of reach: While it could "reach" all neighbors in the Med, these neighbors could not "reach" Rome, at least for the time being. That would change later as the balance of power shifted.
Around the year 0, one can consider Jesus as the "prototype Hippy" teaching love and charity, in other words the Monty Python take on the observed events, or one can see him as a talented strategist who intended to take on the might of the Roman Empire. Actual evidence then favors a combination of both (the "peaceful revolution" against the Roman Empire): crimes against the state, like sedition, were usually punished by crucifiction. The irony of the Roman Empire killing Jesus, is that they later took the resulting religion as a state religion, in efforts to bring unity to the crumbling empire, by replacing a miriad of gods and resorting to the "one god" as single hegemony over all (state religion). The intention to use an ideology to create unity was too little, too late to save a crumbling empire...
Whether such events mentioned on clay tablets, or scrolls, were actual events, or inventions by philosophers to explain strategies, or simply true at some core and then added onto as the ages passed, to become the well-honed stories we read today, is not even important in any systemic analysis. As I always say, historians and politicians can hardly agree on what happened last week, let alone 2,000 years ago, or 4,000 years ago.
Therefore, best to reduce everything to the tier of "systems/strategies" in order to discover what really happened.
THE END
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's what they want.
To "rule" over "division."
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Imperialists are again, after a short break, "organizing" their "violence" as the imperialistic aim and goal. To attain the rule (de jure) and domination (de facto) of the own systems OVER other independent systems which were in any particular place in the world first (aka a given status quo on the timeline of history).
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do."
Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
Their most powerful strategy is the tried and successful "divide and rule." Beware!
Qui bono? Correct, the upper 1% or so of society. Study what happened in the past, and you can foresee the future of the USA.
What did British elites, their 1%-ters, do as the "Empire" collapsed around them after WW2?
Correct answer: they took their assests to the tax havens they had already created for themselves, leaving the rest of British society to try and pick the cart out of the rut...
And there, America, is your future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The reality is that it doesn't really matter whether one "believes" in climate change/climate change hoax...
The reality is that it can't harm investing in the future.
The Green New Deal is about creating forward facing jobs, at the expense of "the old". Instead of subsidizing oil and coal with billions of taxpayer dollars every year, invest these billions in the future, to keep up with the rest of the world.
Fun fact, is that China and Europe don't care about American conservative policies, and are investing in the future.
But yeah, I guess if the internet existed a 100 years ago, PragerU would have created videos about "evil cars" and "stinking unreliable engines", and telling you all about how protecting the interest of the "horsebuggy industry", farmers growing hay, vets, and all that had to be protected...
1
-
Nobody is "exploiting the USA".
It is still the other way around, with around 4% of the global population, controlling around 30% of the world's wealth and resources.
That is simply down from previous levels of exploitation of the entire globe, as the world suffered after WW2.
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how the USA increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions with the creation of such policy "patterns" on the map.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the internationalists with the soft words, while the "bad cops" were the imperialists with the stick. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Geopolitics links what you write, to the big picture.
There is a fracture zone between the big global players (USA/EU, Russia, China) running from the North Pole, through the Baltic States, Poland and Ukraine, via the Caucasus towards Israel. Another fracture zone is the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa(incl. Israel), from there through India, SE Asia (incl. Vietnam), through Taiwan, thd Koreas, Japan, back up to the North Pole.
Expect Washington DC to instigate crises and wars EVERYWHERE on this "fracture zone," because it is the only way they can hang on the the good ol' days a bit longer: their role of the sole hegemon of the world, of the American Century.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If anybody wishes to know what is in store for the EU and other American "best fwiends" after 2025, look back in history to what the USA did to the British Empire after WW2, when it was bankrupt and weak. The first victim of the American Century was not as proclaimed and the generally accepted narrative of history, that "it was the USSR" (sic./Truman Doctrine, "Iron Curtain"-narrative), but the British Empire, which was cut down size turning London from "British lion" to "poodle" in around 25 years, using economic warfare.
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500. My shoutout to the original author's whose site is since removed.]
Pure unfettered opportunism.
After 1945 the USA used its own might as hammer and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). By 1945, Stalin (Moscow), smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and witnessing the collapse of virtually every other European power, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2. It was overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has self-centred imperialist aims and goals , one eventually destroys all alternatives, and when you try to defend everything, you'll eventually "defend nothing" (Friedrich the Great, re. a false allocation of clout and resources, in grand strategy and geopolitics).
That was preceded in geopolitics by a Washington DC shift away from a global non-interventionalist stand on international relations, towards a more active engagement in world affairs and global expansion which incl. European affairs (the study of "Offensive Realism") which started around the year 1900, symbolized by the Spanish-American War (1898). Something London lords happily signed up for with the "Great Rapprochement" (aligned and associated "friends only, no obligations", in the "interests"-reality of imperialism). London must have thought the good times were coming, alongside their "new friends" and making the rules for everybody else. Two Albions getting happily engaged...
What could possibly wrong putting your trust in Washington DC?
In reality, your "friends" in capitalism over the Atlantic can't wait for history to repeat, to wait until Europe is weak again, exhausted from war, down in power, ready for the carving knives of OUTSIDE imperialism, all by the "friends" who are standing by and standing down to enter and benefit from the destruction they themselves greatly contributed to after the 1990s.
1
-
1
-
@learningagain4094 Seeing how most of the comments are slogans and appeals to emotion, I'll just jump into the fray.
For hundreds of years, the British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations around the world. Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images"). When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets". The locals defending their own? Pfffft. Nobody cared...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps (called "penal colonies"), and terror bombing innocents called Air Policing...
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s killed their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheBigEasyConservative The video starts of with a typical strawman.
Here what really happened...
https://secondnexus.com/news/aoc-narrates-climate-change-video/
....out of which opponents of the Green New Deal then made "world will end in 12 years".
Solar is not a heavy industry but a light industry.
https://simplicable.com/new/light-industry
Large scale wind farms are also a heavy industry, but its impact is far less than oil, coal, and nuclear.
Note here, that nobody is arguing to "switch everything off at once", but to rather finally start the transition which was foreseen as necessary 40 years ago.
For 40 years, nothing but talk, debates, scheming, sidelining, deflection, and paid opinion shaping to invest further in industries with no future instead of investing the time, money and creative innovation in industries which do have a future.
Oil, coal, and gas are not endless.
When would you start the necessary transition? In a hundred years when there's nothing left?
[Note, we have to transition at some point anyway, so why not from today on?]
1
-
@TheBigEasyConservative Yes, despite the constant brake pads and backpedaling by conservative energy producers, much progress has been made.
Unfortunately, not enough.
As far as batteries are concerned....
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190201081503.htm
Salt is almost endless, and if even a fraction of the trillions poured into the research and subsidies provided to the oil industry had been invested in New technologies, we might not even be here today discussing the negative effects of lithium.
We'd already have sodium ion batteries.
Same as that example, it takes place in many areas. The resources (time, engineering, research, money, manpower, etc.) invested in conventional R&D should go to the future, not the past.
Out with the old, in with the new.
Step by step of course, but faster.
There is too much dragging of feet.
1
-
@TheBigEasyConservative My link to the future of batteries (sodium-ion) is not the remedy for the entire problem of of rising energy needs in the future. Obviously, the storage of energy is only one aspect of an entire spectrum of green energy.
Yes, everything we do impacts our planet.
Some just impact our planet less than extracting, processing, and burning fossil fuels (including the indirect results of the battle for the sources of these in the form of wars and political meddling). A cheap tank of gas comes with the price tag of trillion dollar wars. You are paying for it indirectly.
If we do it right, and spread the energy transition over as much of the globe as possible, without the concentration on a few areas, the indirect cause of so much meddling and war will diminish. You are already paying for yesterday's and today's wars in the form of bloated national debt.
Yes, energy needs will rise, despite the fact that individual devices and and buildings become more energy efficient.
Burning a million year old rotten plants is obviously a deadend, so why waste further resources on it?
You haven't answered that.
No amount of whataboutism can counter the fact that fossil fuels are not endless. At some point, we must make the transition, and the sooner the better.
The effort wasted on further development of an energy source without a future, is not available for the development of energy sources which do have a future. That is also a fact.
How you argue is irrelevant anyway, because other countries (mainly China and in Europe) do not share your view, and when the time comes will be better set up to deal with the transition.
I only mentioned sodium ion batteries to counter your mistaken belief that lithium batteries will destroy the planet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidharwood6209 I just came here from a video, with hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc...
Sorry to burst your bubble.
I've got some bad news for all you "never gonna fight"-fanboys.
YOU. WILL. GO.
Capturing the hearts and minds of the (mainly) young, rebellious, and easily-influenced, is a long-term goal of what W.T. Stead set out to do as the "Americanization of the World" (book) on all tiers: ideology, food, industrial products, movies, language, etc. Of course, what he didn't mention back then almost a hundred years ago when this global strategy started, was that this was in effect an old Roman-era strategy of power: to morph the conquered, to become "like Rome." Fill the bellies of the global masses ("Bread") and distract them with entertainment ("Circuses"), and then turn them into the tools of the empire.
Beware of the divide-and-rule strategy.
It gave whites ("Europeans") the basis of the power in the past, and they still employ it systemically today, on multiple tiers, and the BASIS of their POWER was the ability to keep all the other states/countries/races in the world "down" in power, by setting them up against each other, to a point of warring each other.
The advantage in power afforded to a system by a geographical distance from rival powers, in combination with parallel factors like an advanced political system with entrenched institutions, wide-ranging trade- and financial system, high population density, a skilled and highly educated work force, favorable climate, abundant raw materials or safe access to these, high level of industrialization, a technological edge, modern infrastructure, strong military, and a well-organized society on all levels, with a stabilizing wide-ranging unity within the own borders.
Divide-and-rule was the advantage they thought they held 100 and 200 years ago, and they think it still is today.
There can be only 1 "winner". The others are the systemic "cannon fodder" for the gain of the few "buck passers".
Democratic systems of course offer the eternal opportunity for eternal "passing the buck": nobody ever did anything, nobody ever decided anything, everybody can always simply point the finger, everywhere else. The perfect systems for all kinds of cowards, slimeballs, profiteers, opportunists and others who are generally not around long enough to ever be responsible for anything that ever goes wrong, and are protected by entire armies of apologists and finger-pointers...
Teach your children well...
Of course these hundreds of comments by Americans and Canadians mirror the comments made by hundreds and hundreds of funny comments by young Brits who voiced their outrage along the lines of "never fight for this country" and "ashamed of what the UK has become" or my personal favourite "not my war (Ukraine)/will never go". Sorry to inform these young men, but they do not know their history. Nor do they understand HOW POWER WORKS. It was what millions of young men already said 100 years ago in the leadup to their declaration of war in 1914, and the current dismay simply the echoes of what many of their grandfathers already said: "not my war", or "what does the death of Archduke have to do with me", or their fathers before them in 1939 ("this is a war of those who use long words", and "not our war").
Step 1: Imperialist encroachment/encirclement of a rival power (in stages after 1890), in times of peace, by aligned off-continental states (the naval powers) and their "buck-catchers", nodded off by the "buck passers" which hold the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
Humdeedum some time passes.
By golly, no more "fweedumb", but CONSCRIPTION for the "trenches class", and YOU end up in the bloody trench to enforce Step 1...
That was not different 100 or 200 years ago, and it will not be different NEXT time around. The global elites will draft YOUR daughter, before they send their own sons to the warzones they have created for their own systemic gains. The biggest losers of all in the class system turn up, finger-pointing, finger-waging ...literally too dumb to figure that all throughout history THEY have been the systemic losers of their leaders trying impose divide and rule on their neighbours, and the rest of the planet and that THAT has not changed right through to today.
Whatever...
Guess who "wins"?
The same class of people who never end up in the muddy trenches, in the wars they had previously lain the foundations for during the Era of Imperialism, while imposing the "divide and rule"-setup of the world. The last time this class of people died in any substantial numbers, was in fact WW1. As for the base of the pyramid, this is the "trenches class" who are the biggest loser class in history, who don't know what their leaders do, or don't care what is implemented, or are too complacent if they find out what is done in their names.
During the 1930s the "global divider in chief", the UK/London, was no longer immune from weapons of long range destruction (bombers), as it was around the year 1900 while big gun battleships still ruled the waves/world and there were no large fleets of bombers yet (technological stand).
The USA today as post-1945 "global divider in chief" is no longer as immune from the weapons of long range destruction (MIRVs carrying nukes) as it was around the year 1945.
It is not the 1900s, or the 1930s, or 1945 anymore.
1
-
Stalin, or why we shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win)
Stalin, or why we should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why it shouldn't have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion...
Why everything should have been done so that the war lasts as long as possible, in order that both sides become exhausted...
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
Not even a case of the often criticized hindsight.
Obviously, to everyone in the diplomatic corps at the time, it was clear that Hitler wanted to attack Poland.
He already had a "suitable excuse", so why didn't he?
Why didn't he attack Poland in July or August, while the SU was engaged in the East (Khalkin Gol)?
If he could simply attack Poland, why didn't he?
Stalin had figured it out. Hitler was afraid of the existing status quo, which was a "2 front war with 4 enemies at the same time".
The political situation that existed de facto, kept the peace.
All that was needed for war was for 1 of the four parties to opt out de jure (aka via treaty)....
Stalin said he thought it would be one of the other 3, but hey...it's Stalin right? Such an honest, upright, decent human being, who always kept his word.
1
-
Correction.
The "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbing, carniverious" (Thomas Jefferson, re. imperialism) NEVER admit what really happened, never mind how damning the evidence is...
See Brits today, re. the Empire and why it failed.
HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books.
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source)
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies.
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
EPISODE I:
"... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies (ALL MORE THAN ADEQUATELY ELABORATED in the below comments section) called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
EPISODES II thru IV:
Lotsa other stuff happening.
EPISODE V:
If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003
Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice.
Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power.
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
This is the theory.
According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules.
According to the concept of "meaning of words" all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
That includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoided (grand strategy) by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (with a signed comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, which is that imperialism were the root causes of all European wars, as based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority of the powers not IN Eurasia, and still is.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
In a nutshell: Implement and fund delusional propaganda games. Nothing of substance, with the implemented events often the exact opposite of the the loudly proclaimed "values". In the background, keep other systems either down or out of the own systems of gain and luxury life (50% for us, the minority), on ALL tiers, often by force, coercian, or at gunpoint, if it cannot be bought or corrupted, all accompanied by continuous flurry of words without meaning, spread by the exact systems which gain from keeping everything the way it is (a "divide and rule"-setup of the world).
That is the "divide and rule"-strategy of politics (or the associated divide then gain/control technique of power).
It is to create confusion, which can be exploited.
1
-
1
-
Do you wish to contribute a small share to force Israel into a negotiated peace process?
Are you American, or European? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from the multitude of military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not perfect, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions.
It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A very common excuse for Versailles is usually the "just as bad as Brest-Litovsk"-narrative, usually accompanied by long lists of how much poor Imperialist Russia "lost" in 1917 (percentage of territory, or population, or other similar criteria). Of course, the intention of such rhetoric is to focus the attention of the observer onto what some "poor empire" lost, rather than to focus on what others gained (the first tentative steps towards independence for millions of non-Russians).
So we are (historically) sopposed to feel sorry for what some "poor" power mongers in the capital city of Moscow lost, rather than rejoice in the new-found independence others gained?
Let's not be fooled by our own biases.
Either as a direct or indirect result of WW1 (which had already caused so much suffering and lost lives from 1914 to 1917) weakening the powers involved, millions of Ukrainians, Finns, Lithuanians, Estonians, and Latvians and others in the Caucasus region gained their first real opportunity to break free from the historical grip St Petersburg/Moscow held over them. This Russian weakness in 1917/18 offered a suitable point in time during which these nations and their new leaders could use the weakness of the historical hegemon, in order to break free and achieve more control over own matters. The Central Power's weakness at the time (after the failed spring offensive in March 1918, and subsequent willingness by Berlin to negotiate a peace settlement in the west, and ongoing rapid collapse of Austria-Hungary) also offered a suitable point in time during which Allied leaders could have politically engineered a favorable outcome for the new Eastern European "little nations" in their quest for a new independent future.
A similar historical analogy would be the late-1980s, the collapse of the SU, and the subsequent way in which Moscow's weakness was used to gain independence for "little nations" for the second time in less than a hundred years.
Such a process of breaking free from the constraints of a hegemon can either be foiled, or supported by outside powers.
During WW1, by rescinding Brest-Litovsk as a pre-requisite for peace talks (Armistice conditions) for their own war in the west, and since "Russia" as a "power" had simply passed the point of being a useful tool for London/Paris/Washington DC to bind as many enemy soldiers as possible, the Western Allies now also nipped the ongoing process of independence in Central Europe "in the bud". Note that throughout 1917, there were intense efforts by the Allies to keep Russia "in the fight". Obviously a two-front war for the Central Powers seriously weakened them, limiting their ability to effect an outcome.
The Armistice conditions of November 1918 also (de facto) forced the withdrawal of the last few German garisons from the Ukraine, thereby enabling all that followed: the Red invasion, and the expansion of the Civil War to include the regions previously pacified by Brest-Litovsk. Millions of people subsequently losing their lives, health, and property as the commies swarmed into the Ukraine.
Up to that point in time (Nov 1918), the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk had acted as a de jure barrier to ward off the new Moscow power mongers (communists), intent on re-establishing the borders of the previous Imperial Russia for themselves and as a base for their intended "conquest of the world" (evidence: see the Communist International/Comintern in 1919, where the intention was voiced to destroy world order, including the use of violence). A little bit of hindsight there, for the "hindsight"-fans...
That they would use "rivers of blood" to achieve this "endsieg", was already clear at this time (see Russian Civil War, which had raged in other parts of ex-Imperial Russia since 1917).
Had Brest-Litovsk remained intact, the independence of the Ukraine and Caucasus Republics could have been successfully effected in 1918 already, and the Ukraine saved as a further bullwark against communism. A massive part of communism's later power during the Cold War (population, raw materials, oil, and other tools of "power") could have been denied to them, as a "rug pulled out underneath their feet".
Conclusion: By forcing the withdrawal of German soldiers, and rescinding Brest-Litovsk, there was neither a de jure nor a de facto barrier which held the commies back.
And today? Moscow's intention on re-establishing the borders of the previous times, at least in part (so-called "sphere of influence"-grabbing): Strange how today nobody talks about "How much poor Russia lost in the 1990s", thereby creating faux sympathy for the current invasion, and millions losing their lives, health, and property just like 1919...
The "narrative" has simply been suitably shifted or "tweaked" to ensure that "history" is being written "correctly" for the chanting masses...lol
"Written correctly" of course is nothing else but to provide the apologia for own actions and inactions, because "at any moment in time, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing at all" (Theodore Roosevelt).
The "winners" certainly excelled at "doing nothing" re. Central and Eastern Europe, even though keeping Brest-Litovsk intact in parts, would not have made a wise peace in the west improbable in any way.
A very common excuse for Versailles being "just as bad as Brest-Litovsk", is simply yet another attempt at finger-pointing aka "deflection"(see Bible for moral guidelines re. the concept of "deflection"), in order to cover up own weak historical leadership and their own historical greed to grab spheres of influence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's always never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose.
Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever thought about what such a policy meant?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be written off...
It means these slimy deceitful Albions expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
To hell with them.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy..."
Me: ROFL
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary lines drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that "faraway empires" would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? It looks very interesting. Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies...
How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets they have. Want some..."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up. Kick them out.
1
-
You will have to figure it out yourself.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a noun, and a defined term.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Like the ideology of democracy.
YES, believe it or not, what YOU believe in, is an ideology.
Similar to this concept are systems of beliefs, systems of ideas, and systems of ideals.
ALL of these, need "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
They need you, yes, YOU, to lie, and kill, so they can steal in the background, and YOU, yes, "you", are not better that anybody else on this planet if you lie, and kill for an ideology.
These dumbed down masses reveal themselves by the way the speak...
They are all tools, of others.
These power players preach from their "boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy".
Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of them, must be wrong.
When one criticizes an ideologue's ideology, they expose their true nature.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All states, also the western style "liberal democracies" and therefore the "good states" have set up non-elected agencies, which are outside of the control of any voters, and therefore the collective wisdom and moral values of humanity. The resulting system is that of pyramidically shaped systems of gain in which power and wealth is funnelled to the top. These pyramidically shaped systems of gain called "capitalism" and "politics" have the stated goal of removing opposition, known as being a "dirty game". They are designed by nature to attract fellow human beings with aggressive and even psychopathic tendencies (see footnote).
A large portion of our fellow human beings perceive these as valid traits to achieve the own political and personal priorities. "Might is right", and "end justifies the means" are still axioms of so-called superiority. There is also no reason to believe that any other system which promises power, will not attract similar numbers of bullies and psychopaths.
Reality: "Liberal democracies" and "capitalist gain models" attract psychos like moths to the flame, and most human beings wouldn't be able to spot a psycho even if their lives depended on it. Most human beings living in symbiosis of systems either don't have the skill to recognize bad actors, nor the inclination to remove them since it is tangentially beneficial to own favoured systems, or have become directly entrapped by the "gain models" (pyramids of power/wealth) lead by such bad actors. An example of this would be the case of Oliver North, whose psychopathic dealings were rewarded by "the system" with a highly paid management position (NRA). It doesn't seem to bother sufficient decent people enough to make such "management styles" impossible (effect a "stopper" against such models de jure or de facto). Indeed, based on observation, and looking back in history it can therefore be concluded that such behaviour is only given a "slap on the wrist" (ineffective punishment), and therefore continues in our good empires on the right side of history...
--------
Footnote:
Studies have shown that models based on "intent of gain", like capitalism, have rates of people with psychopathic tendencies as high as 20%. Compare that reality to the average for a normal society, or usual non-gain models of cooperation, which is around a "1% psycho saturation rate". There is no reason to believe other models of "intent of gain" (like politics) do not have similar high rates of psychos.
These bad actors and deceivers play games with their own inhabitants, telling them things like "all we want is peace", whereas in reality there are elements pushing for eternal war which benefits the systems they represent.
Key words for further research:
1) 21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths
2) Lobaczewski's definition of pathocracy
3) The dark triad of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ideology
Source: Dictionary
noun
1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of democracy"
Similar: beliefs, ideas, ideals
This "box" called "TV" billions bow down to, has got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives in sinecure comfort...
Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders who appear to them in these "boxes". The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) to kill for, is democracy in colusion with corporatism, and the slogan they chant is "Make the world safe for democracy".
Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders constantly lie and call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One ideal, must be wrong.
When one criticizes an ideologue's ideology, they expose their true nature.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@halo3zocker N ew
A tlanticist
T erritorial
O peration
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans.
- Caucasus region/Black Sea (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those being encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon.
This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their current subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
------------------------------------
The bigger picture can be distorted, and the strategy of divide-and-rule hidden behind narratives of benevolence...
For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented (de facto reality). For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
1
-
@genenaroditsky3477 Divide and conquer works because not everyone involved knows that they are taking on a role in a power game. That's how the strategy works. Very few people really need to understand it. In English, the principle is called "Useful Innocent/Useful Idiot." From a position of power, you can animate people (usually through money, or ideology) who play a role, but they know not what they do.
The peoples of Eurasia and the world, including Western Europe (most of which are Christian) and Western Asia (most of which are Semites), have been divided and ruled by foreigners for centuries.
Because it's easier to divide people based on personal differences than to unite them based on their similarities. Strategically ambivalent foreigners use this to their own advantage. In the era of European imperialism, London initially dragged along its junior partner Paris to meddle here, and after 1945 as the influence of European colonial powers declined, Washington DC simply took on the role of divider (during the Cold War, the whole world was the playground). Now the intention is simply to avoid the unity of Eurasia in order to "rule" over the dissenters, which is the classic "divide and conquer" principle. This strategy is kept under wraps, due to a systemic desire to be "good", and on the "right side of history", and therefore overemphasizing the actions of philanthropists, political doves, peace activists, religious leaders, etc.
At the same time the activities of political hawks sowing divisions are downplayed, relativized, apologized for, mostly by politicians and strategists as the "story tellers" of history. But also by commoners, who simply parrot the stories without thinking them through, and who are NOT privy to the overall strategy (divide-and-rule in all its intricacies and nuances).
"The main interest of the United States - for which we have been fighting wars for a century (the First, Second and the Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only power that could threaten us. And we must make sure that does not happen. ... For the United States ... the greatest fear is German technology, German capital and Russian natural resources, Russian labor as the only combination that has frightened the United States for centuries. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltic to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, February 2015
Today their leaders are too weak to unite, to avoid their "friends" simply drawing lines on the map, which they cower down to and must obey.
Like a ratchet, one click at a time, the "marching empire."
Endless wars, constant disagreements, using imperialism to stay on top.
Using "levers" of lies and distrust, via power players.
Creating favorites: favoring the proxies who bow down and sacrifice themselves for the mastah.
Pointing fingers, everywhere else, using the POWER of the mainstream media.
Divide-and-rule/conquer.
The oldest trick in the book...
Who has the POWER? Who (in all historical cases in Eurasia) had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all other "buck catchers" (tools and other instruments of POWER in the Roman era style), but could not be reached themselves at any point in a historical timeline due to a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic- or political advantage?
“Divide-and-rule/conquer” as a standard strategy of power and thus the cause of nearly all conflicts in the world connects the dots on the timeline of history. Who (in all historical cases in the Middle East/Levant) had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being far from the events resulting from their own meddling and political activities and being able to reach all other regions, but could not be reached themselves as a hegemony at any point in a historical timeline? It only works within a technological window of opportunity: for the British Empire, it was when naval power “ruled the world” and its own heartland was “unreachable” and from this impregnable fortress it could “divide” all others and thus prevent unification elsewhere. After WWII and today, it will only work as long as the combination of political influence, nuclear weapons and cultural hegemony dominates all others.
Pax Romana. Pax Britannica. Pax Americana. All they want is peace, they say. Who gathers the pieces of the great wealth and systemic gains when everyone else has failed to unite?
Different empires. Different era. Same games...
Once the Albion, always the Albion.
In their own narratives, the "empire" and "divider" is ALWAYS the "good guy."
The opposition that wants unity in a region is the "bad guy."
We, who seek true peace and harmony, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized.
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D chess." Everything you know is a "variation" of reality. They are playing “5D chess” with the minds of 2D checkers players, within the rains of people who think they are “smart”.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the study of conflict resulting out of the migration of large cultural groups, usually as part of agendas or expansion.
What is presently happening, as a part of a wider conflict going back at least 100 years, is the immigration of a superior culture of lighter skin-colored cultural ingroup, injected onto a darker skin-colored cultural outgroup.
The favored ingroup coming from outside (people born elsewhere) received land, livestock, and a home of sorts, all based on the advantage of having "friends in the right places", and having more resources at hand for the own aims and goals. In return, they become what the USA did during their own expansion into North America, the "farms/forts", which if "shot at" would always be "just defended", or "shooting back" (see below essays for more examples of this strategy or "101 playbook of imperialism" for expansion of the own systems).
The "settler colonist" (system) is the TOOL of expansion.
While the existing population was squeezed out of strategically vital areas one step at a time (arable farmland, for example, or sources of water), the faraway controlling political movement sought widespread support from whoever would give it, specifically from very imperialistic indoctrinated "friendly systems", for the own expansive goals. Real or at least tacid support for the "own -ism" is bought from large organization, like the UN for example.
People who came with the well-wishing of large portions of the "ingroup"-supporters ("-isms"), or at least indifferent/ignorant of the real issues and therefore largely complacent, created a culture of "settler colonialism", creating a "storyline" that if such a settler colonist is attacked in any way, that they will be "just defending themselves". The original imperialist expansion (industrial/financial/argricultural/mining/raw materials/ideological, etc.), of "settler colonialism" being the cause of conflict, is simply never questioned at all...
Of course, one does not need a cristal ball, or be a Nostradumbass in order to predict that conflict was bound to take place, in view of previously unfolding similar series of historical events, in other places in the world, where people with an "-ism", emboldened by a feeling of cultural superiority, following a prescribed set of steps as strategy, in order to gain a superior political/economic position for the own "tribe" (tribalism).
When one studies the various perspectives about human conflict, one can't help wondering who is most to blame.
Is it:
1) the various enablers and deciders as executive powers? (leaderships)
2) those who saw financial opportunities to exploit, specifically in case troubles/strife ensued? (opportunists)
3) those who wished to proliferate themselves, advance personal carriers, or similar free-riders, but otherwise had no real POWER as executives? (political expediency of choosing sides)
4) the huddled masses without land, who decided to take the lifeline thrown at them, despite knowing that they were imposing on another already existing indigenous population? (chosen ingroup)
5) the indigenous population, mostly equally "huddled masses" just trying to eke out a living, but who were never asked what they wanted for themselves as collective? (chosen outgroup)
6) any other, or a different order, since this is an open question
It should not be too difficult to conclude that responsibility for the resulting conflict goes pretty much in the order of 1 to 5, with those mostly responsible being the few "deciders" (as 1). These should not only have been in the position to foresee trouble ahead, but also to acknowledge these foreseeable events, and then search alternatives.
Only...
...the unfolding series of events did not take place in the Middle East, and did not involve London, the British Empire, France, or any other western power.
The conflict mentioned in the first paragraphs, has been taking place with gathering momentum over the past 100 years, is taking place in Irian Jaya (Indonesia) of course.
I hope nobody concluded is was about some other place somewhere else in the world...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_conflict
The "strategic encroachment" as part of such "outgroup"-agendas must be searched for...
"During the late 20th century Indonesia resettled 300,000 farmers to the restive province of West Papua, transforming its demographic composition. Such resettlement, or ‘transmigration’, was quite limited until the mid-1980s and restricted to only certain areas of West Papua. What accounts for the incidence of transmigration? Using a panel of all transmigration, ethnic cleansing and demographic change data in each regency of West Papua during 1964-2000 compiled from confidential government sources, I show that, after an aborted Papuan uprising in 1984, Indonesia cleansed and settled its border with Papua New Guinea to forestall cross-border insurgent activity. I then show that after the Grasberg gold mine was opened in 1990 Indonesia cleansed and settled the area around the mine." from the introduction of "Indonesian Settler Colonialism in West Papua", 10 Jun 2020, Lachlan McNamee, University of California, Los Angeles
According to the "NIMBY"-principle, most people actually do not care much about unfolding events far away, so are most likely completely unaware that there even is a simmering conflict somewhere else. According to "NIMBY" however, should the shoe be on the other foot, and the own existence becomes "encroached upon" by an outside migrating group (immigrants/refugees), all of similar background, it doesn't take long for the observed "unease" to begin. Firstly, in the form of lots of moaning and groaning, then if no political action changing the course of events results, the "steps" gradually increase in the level of violence exerted. Firstly there would be randomly organized protests, then larger forms of civil unrest, more property damage, more arson, the first deaths, and so on, and so on, until there is a large scale revolution. Any wise political leadership will always head off such series of unfolding events, but there must be a recognition that action is called for. If not, the series of events always follow predictable patterns, regardless of the tier of events, the cultural background of those involved, the gods these people pray to, the ideology, or the language spoken.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@canesvenatici9588 Stating that there are minor differences between races is not "racist" of course.
In fact, Darwinism clearly supports the fact the people "breed" and adapt according to their surroundings.
Rural areas demand sturdy and strong people, and these will stand out as mating partners to women.
In modern societies, "geeks" and "nerds" are more affluent, and make them appear more desirable to women as mating partners.
So, each passing generation will reflect that.
Africans will remain dominant athletes, as long as Africa remains predominantly rural.
Europeans and Asians will be predominantly less sturdy, as a reflection of the urban societies they live in.
Note, exceptions do not confirm rules. So of course there will always be differences, and exceptions.
We are a reflection of our surroundings, and it will take several generations of "natural selection" to adapt to the changing environment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: WRONG.
It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid ze divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
The Big Lie is the power of the divide and rule/conquer technique, and even the Nazis hid their "Big Lie"-conspiracy theory, behind an even bigger lie: how they intended to play this game until they got into power after their failed coup d'etat.
The "Big Lie" is not a myth but a misrepresentation of the truth.
It is the power of "divide and rule/conquer" which lurks behind every strategy they follow, in order to gain.
No human being has ever come up with a means to overcome this age-old technique of ruling over billions of people, because it is predicated on human nature itself, which is enduring.
No power player wants to become associated with authoritarian, or "colonial" tactics and strategies, or Nazis, so they cannot use it as a political means to attack rivals: it will immediately result in blowback.
The "Big Lie" conspiracy masked the divide and rule technique.
No power player can ever accuse any other power player of using it, since it will immediately backfire: the accusation of using the technique themselves, which in most cases of intent of gain will even apply***. The disguise usually comes in the form of scapegoating or another form of appeal to the emotion of listeners, or addressing and fortifying their already existing biases.
"Scapegoating" = an appeal to lower emotions of potential supporters.
In our divided societies, appealing to these biases might always be that tiny little "weight" that tilts the scale in very tightly run political elections.
Most power players read books on strategy, with the intention of using these strategies for personal gain, not because they wish to benefit you (the individual).
There is always the urge to defend own favored systems, when one reads perceived "attacks" on these favored systems or own heroes, and the beloved own "-isms", which also reveal standard procedures, meaning the "attacker" soon falls into predetermined pathways to deflect and obfuscate from the core theory...
Footnotes:
**only applies in competitive "intent of gain" systems, *not benevolent forms of reciprocal human interaction which are 100% fair...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative.
If an actual fair treaty had ended WW1 in 1919, there would not have been a "WW2" and none of that which followed in the wake of an unfair end, would have ever happened.
Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with SYSTEMIC EXPANSION, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a "fact"? Because it actually happened.
Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
The marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans.
- Caucasus region/Black Sea (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an "IMbalance of powers" as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing.
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control).
This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
------------------------------------
Trying to remain neutral in the face of a grand strategy by global players is futile if the players intend to outwit each other by using people as "tools" on their "chessboards." The bigger picture can be distorted, and reality can be manipulated to deceive millions of people. You are an integral part of the games, wanted or not. The history of the encirclement policy of a Eurasian superpower repeated itself after 1990. The intent of the hegemonic power is to "transform" the smaller systems into tools of encirclement (proxies) or "unsinkable aircraft carriers" for its own systemic control or expansion. Then produce the entire story as "protecting freedom/friends/democracy," a "fight for freedom," or some other story that sounds good in Hollywood (a "bread and circuses" strategy for the domestic masses).
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American century after 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
For the "divider," the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How"* and "that" are different premises...
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategist who openly admit this.
The conflagration that took place after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
World War 1 (Seven Years War)
World War 2 (Napoleonic Wars)
World War 3 (Great War/WW1)
World War 4 (World War 2)
World War 5, the next LONG WAR...
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after 1990 (Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primary" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim.
Written down, for all to see.) and this time the "targets" of the global strategy were not Central Europe, but rather China and Russia. Only this time the new rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corrupt position because they "feel" better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of the GOLDEN RULE: "Do unto others what you do not want done to you."
Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the "logic" of causality where there is a trench waiting for you...
Fun fact? It does not even matter what you think, or how you respond to this essay, because "how" and "that" are different premises, and the individual brain must be capable of processing such data.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are 100% on spot.
This "gut feeling" which you cannot explain, is in fact very simple: it is the effects of the strategy of divide and rule.
"The Force" to influence billions of minds is strategy. The most effective of these is the divide and rule/conquer technique. It is also the most misunderstood of all strategies, usually and falsely associated with Nazis, bullies and other evil regimes: WRONG.
It is simply a technique used to effect the highest own potential systemic gain with the least own imput, by dividing any potential opposition, mostly via the cheap trick of appealing to people's emotions and biases. Once systemic dependecies have been created, on multiple tiers, these must come to the "divider" for "a ruling".
Every system which does not specifically forbid the divide and rule/conquer technique, will systematically enable it.
No human system is immune to it, and neither are democracies, or our revered capitalism, or any form of "meritocracy".
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoratism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is.
Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use the technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Like the Nazis, all power players regardless of the "system of gain" in question, come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
Enter any hierarchical system of power in any intent of gain model of reciprocal human interaction, and you'll enter a shark tank.
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
The Big Lie is the power of the divide and rule/conquer technique, and even the Nazis hid their "Big Lie"-conspiracy theory, behind an even bigger lie: how they intended to play this game until they got into power after their failed coup d'etat.
The "Big Lie" is not a myth but a misrepresentation of the truth.
It is the power of "divide and rule/conquer" which lurks behind every strategy they follow, in order to gain.
No human being has ever come up with a means to overcome this age-old technique of ruling over billions of people, because it is predicated on human nature itself, which is enduring.
No power player wants to become associated with authoritarian, or "colonial" tactics and strategies, or Nazis, so they cannot use it as a political means to attack rivals: it will immediately result in blowback.
The "Big Lie" conspiracy masked the divide and rule technique.
No power player can ever accuse any other power player of using it, since it will immediately backfire: the accusation of using the technique themselves, which in most cases of intent of gain will even apply***. The disguise usually comes in the form of scapegoating or another form of appeal to the emotion of listeners, or addressing and fortifying their already existing biases.
"Scapegoating" = an appeal to lower emotions of potential supporters.
In our divided societies, appealing to these biases might always be that tiny little "weight" that tilts the scale in very tightly run political elections.
Most power players read books on strategy, with the intention of using these strategies for personal gain, not because they wish to benefit you (the individual).
There is always the urge to defend own favored systems, when one reads perceived "attacks" on these favored systems or own heroes, and the beloved own "-isms", which also reveal standard procedures, meaning the "attacker" soon falls into predetermined pathways to deflect and obfuscate from the core theory...
Great Britain did not "win" from the "divide and rule/conquer" system they had set up in Europe, as a matter of an own London policy standpoint of making the strongest continental power their "default rival/enemy" system.
If you wish to truly understand the "how" and "why", then go to the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under this video. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
No, these essays are not a "conspiracy theory."
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section):
Most of what we are fed by our systems, as "rote leaning" details, are "99% ancillary details": not saying these are untrue or wrong, but simply that they are not as important on the ranking or "tiers" of events as geopolitics and grand strategy.
For these geostrategists, divide and rule/conquer is their main strategy, regardless of what you as an individual believe.
Footnotes:
* only applies in competitive "intent of gain" systems, not benevolent forms of reciprocal human interaction which are 100% fair...
1
-
Simon Bolivar was a tool or a proxy of the rising USA.
Washington DC used foreign blood (South Americans) while Europeans were off to look for easier targets of exploitation in Africa and Asia, and local South American "iron and blood" was "employed" indirectly to drive a slowly fading European colonial power out of the Americas (geopolitics/grand strategy) by offering a "shield" (Monroe Doctrine) that revolutionaries in the Americas could operate behind, whilst at the same time doing most of the "bleeding" (aka the "freedom"-argument). Strange thing though, is that nobody has ever bothered to find out what percentage of the population who lived in these regions at the time, actually wanted this "freedom" for themselves. It is simply assumed that most wanted it, 'cos "who can argue against freedom"...
After the "freedom" set in after the series of wars left many exhausted, the road to own US economic and political domination into these reformed political systems was paved, in the form of taking away the markets of the European Empire (Spain). Carved up into statelets, each of minor power inferior to the USA, is of course a classical "divide and rule"-strategy...
A template Washington DC later expanded on in a much larger scale as it "came for" Europe, and a little bit later (see footnote) the last powerful European empire in the world, the British Empire.
A historical observation of "carving up potential opposition into statelets" (Spanish Empire territory, turned into "statelets" like Venezuela and Columbia), each of lesser power than the "divider"...
This exact same technique was later used, scaled up sufficiently by Washington DC, to overpower the British Empire after 1945.
Footnote: The Father Niemöller logic of "morality", is of course as much a warning to heed a "balance of power", since if once destroyed, there will be nobody left to unite with in order to protect the own interests from an overpowering rival (or the own "best friend/s").
If a reader of this essay wishes to truly understand the "how" and "why" the British Empire failed, then go to the Kai..ser Wilh_elm II video of the "Hi--story R--oom" educational channel (distorted to avoid the autoblock function of some channels). Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under this video. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
Most of what we are fed by our systems, as "rote learning" details, are "99% ancillary details": not saying these are untrue or wrong, but simply that they are not as important on the ranking or "tiers" of events as geopolitics and grand strategy.
For these geostrategists, divide and rule/conquer is their main strategy, regardless of what you as an individual believes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century, just like every other POTUS in history. Some might have been more openly imperialistic, but they all served an expansive empire.
Peace? YES.
Idolatry? No.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Fact is that Trump, or any other previous admin, did not stop this "(systemic) slow march".
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemony.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quiet or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
Just claim hero status for the self, and blame everybody else for everything which goes wrong.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Already predicted. Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
------------------------------------------
Footnote
With Europe set up against Russia, the USA will pivot to Asia to instigate trouble here (already the strategy since Obama).
We are supposed to admire them, but they never give anything of geopolitical/grand strategy value back. Ever. Ratchet principle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PragerU is not telling the whole story.
They are using a propaganda method called "lying by omitting".
Here is what happened, and the timeline is important.
It is Miss Chow who "started it" by wanting to restrict fellow Americans' unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and happiness" and trying to impose her own convictions onto others .
Trying to restrict another American's rights, not based on a factual argument (say, restricting gun rights because of the many deaths), but using one's own "feelings" is un-American.
That means not understanding basic rights , as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
She didn't choose for herself.
She made a political decision (simulated of course) that impacted others and that goes against the spirit it of separation of church and state as desired by the founding fathers.
She did not only "abstain", which is her right to do.
She hid behind her Bible, stating that is what made her choose the way she did. Obviously, it is her own convictions, but she blames her "god"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-iw4gz7vh4w Yup.
There are only 2 types of US Presidents.
Those turned inward (isolationist), and those turned outwards (expansion).
US policy for the ME was kicked off by Eisenhower, who obvious saw a chance to expand the US sphere of influence after the British and French empires, weakened by WW2, started cracking at the seams...
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
"For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster."
Arming Sharia Law loving and western lifestyle hating fanatics was suddenly "in".
The popular slogan "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is bs, because once your common enemy is gone, you are still left with an enemy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For hundreds of years, the British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations around the world. Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images").
Looks a lot like Coventry, doesn't it?
Kagoshima, Copenhagen, Canton, Sebastopol (Krim War), and and dozens of others.
Such fun to have propaganda ministers coining the term "Copenhagenization" to mock the children they burnt alive...
From wiki, regarding the practice: "...the Political Register: 'Oh, that example of Copenhagen has worked wonders in the world!...I (would) like to see the name of that city become a verb ... 'cities will be copenhagenized' is an excellent phrase. It's very true, that Sir John Warren would copenhagenize New York with very little trouble..."
Excellent indeed...
London, Hull, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham...suitably Coventrized. Nice "verb" that, according to the lords...
When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets" and bomb(ard) countries without declaring war. The locals defending their own? Mowing down natives armed with spears, with machine guns? Pfffft. Nobody cared...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps (called "penal colonies"), and terror bombing innocents called Air Policing...
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s killed their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
All of a sudden, they were sooooo tired of all that "Empire"-stuff...
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Under the new Trump admin of Neocon imperialists, the USA will pull out of NATO and leave the EU like "Uriah" on the frontlines, to face Russia by themselves.
Read the strategy: it is more than 2,000 years old, but Europeans still don't get that the USA is "not your friend" (loosely quoting Henry Kissinger).
There will be sufficient numbers of Americans cheering and banner waving the resulting "just in isolation"-narrative.
Just like there will always be sufficient numbers of Americans to cheer and banner wave for almost ANY strategy and practically ANY narrative.
Don't enshrine your own safety to the American people. They are as clueless as everybody else with re. to geopolitics and grand strategy. Don't enshrine your own future to hordes of self-centred people who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag...
The war in the Ukraine is to a great extent a war of Washington DC's own making. To recognize that, what must look at what did NOT happen after around the year 2000, which was full Washington DC support for a comprehensive European security agreement (incl. Russia), which then lay the foundation for the crisis/war after 2014. No amount of cherry picking and finger pointing will deflect from what is the reality: specific Washington DC/Pentagon/NATO actors did not WANT it. Now, they will withdraw, and leave Europeans in the crosshairs, because European leaders are far too dumb to realize they've been scammed...again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For more than a century up to around 1900, London secured their Empire by uniquely "balancing powers" on the the continent. A geographical advantage meant they could use and abuse "temporary best friends" for their own porposes...expansion and greed, thinly veiled by random acts of kindness...
What had been built up for four-hundred years, was squandered in less than a lifetime.
With Dresden and other over the top excesses, they destroyed the balance.
Dresden is symbolic for the nail in the coffin...of the British Empire.
After the war, they would be at the mercy of two powers they had called "friends" (in a long list of previous "friends"), they had no control or influence over, and who desired Empire's valuable spheres of influence all over the world.
After the war there was nothing left to "balance out" Moscow and Washington DC.
From the complete Yes Minister:
"Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see."
How funny....
So London liked to "play games", and in the end end they "won" the proverbial "stupid prize". The eclipse of their 400-year Empire in less than a lifetime.
Down they went.
Onto the dustpile of history where they belonged...
1
-
Simon Foxwell @Sam Ferguson London went to war on the continent twice, by own admission, to "balance powers" on the continent...
London's standpoint, by own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell = the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
And so the London lords played their "balancing games".
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
Not satire at all.
That's what happened.
How absolutely funny...
The lords gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for their own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire.
Good riddance.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They "hopped on the scale" here, and they "hopped on the scale there", until they finally "hopped" their way into extinction...
Sad.
Good riddance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
mr white Excellent.
Seeing that you're probably in lockdown, with time on your hands, maybe search "how Portugal ended its war on drugs".
A smart attempt at addressing the domestic US drug problem in the USA, rather than trying export it to Central America will be a good start...
Once the "demand factor" is under a controlled environment, the next step would be to end the dumb War on Drugs.
Pull the rug from underneath the feet of crooks, drug runners, corrupt politicians in Central America, corrupt cops, drug syndicates, human traffickers, and everybody else mootching off your tax dollars....
1
-
The USA and divide Europe and rule the world...
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
Regarding in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's leaders, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement, amongst other less "valuable" suitors (like Germany, see below comment), was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped in to avoid any form of continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below).
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises" :-)
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below comment explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
"Right or wrong" is of course easily and neutrally determined by "putting oneself in the shoes" of others.
When it came to "little nations being thrown to crocodiles", own interests came first.
Principles went overboard.
What aided in dividing Europe came first. The independence of little nations? Not so much...
Washington DC: "Principles like we showed in 1905? Nah. Let's ruffle some European feathers."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Was ist „Teile und Herrsche“?
Das Gesamtbild der Geschichte kann verzerrt werden, und die Wirklichkeit kann manipuliert werden, um Millionen von Menschen zu täuschen. Die Geschichte der Einkreisungpolitik eine Eurasischen Grossmacht wiederholte sich nach 1990. Die Absicht der Hegemoniemacht besteht darin, die kleineren Systeme zu „verwandeln“, um sie zu Werkzeugen der Einkreisung (Stellvertreter) oder zu „unsinkbaren Flugzeugträgern“ für die eigene systemische Kontrolle oder Erweiterung zu machen. Dann produzieren Sie die gesamte Geschichte auch noch als „Schutz der Freiheit/Freunde/Demokratie,“ als "Freiheitskampf," oder irgentwelche andere Story das auch in Hollywood noch gut wirkt (Strategie des "Bread and Circuses" für die heimische Massen).
Die später als 1. und 2. Weltkrieg bezeichneten Ereignisse waren Teil derselben Feuersbrunst, die um das Jahr 1900 begann, als die Seemächte ihre kontinentalen Nachbarn umzingelten.
Für das folgende American Century von Henry Luce, war Europa einfach ein etwas größerer Landstrich als Großbritannien für Rom um das Jahr „0“: Die von Washington D.C. verwendete Technik war dieselbe, nämlich die Nutzung bestehender Teilungen. Solche Spaltungen für eigene Zwecke auszunutzen und zu vertiefen, ist die Strategie „Teile und Herrsche“. Ein proaktives Mittel, um eigene Interessen auf Kosten anderer voranzutreiben besteht darin einige zu bevorzugen (die Macht der Begünstigten zu erhöhen) auf Kosten anderer (die Macht der Geächteten zu verringern).
Für den „Spalter“ in der Gesamtstrategie „Teile und Herrsche“, sind die Vielzahl der Gründe, Motivationen, Ideologien, Rechtfertigungen, Meinungen, Ausreden oder die Interessen derer, die mitwirken, um die nützliche Spaltung für die höhere Macht zu erreichen, nicht von Bedeutung. Für die spaltende Macht spielt es keine Rolle, wie die Spaltung umgesetzt wird, oder wie bestehende Spaltungen vertieft werden, oder wer aus welchen Gründen auch immer hilft, oder ob diejenigen, die die Spaltung begünstigen und daraus Vorteile ziehen es überhaupt wissen, dass sie die Spaltung unterstützen: Was zählt, ist, dass es umgesetzt wird. Für den Spalter mit ein Geographischer Vorteil der Entfernung zu Gewaltereignissen (Abstand vom Geschehen) ist es nicht wichtig, warum die Werkzeuge zusammenarbeiten, sondern die Tatsache, dass die ausgesuchte Werkzeuge zusammenarbeiten, um Spaltung zu schaffen und irgendwo einen Teil des Planeten zu überwältigen.
Wie und das sind unterschiedliche Prämissen.
Das Imperium ist auf der Suche nach Gewinn, und es sind nur die eigene „Interessen“ wichtig.
Der Flächenbrand, der sich nach 1914 abspielte, war ein weiterer europäischer 30-jähriger Krieg (mit einer 20-jährigen Pause dazwischen).
Die so eingerichteten Spaltungen waren:
1) die Einkreiser und Seemächte (Großbritannien/USA) mit ihren kontinentalen Verbündete (wie beispielsweise Frankreich nach 1904 und Russland nach 1907).
gegen:
2) die kontinentalen Allianzen, die durch die Seeherrschaft von 1) eingekreist und daran gehindert wurden ausreichende Einflussbereiche für ihr Wachstum zu erreichen, und diese Einkreisungsstrategie begann als vorsätzliche Aktion der Seemächte um 1900 und wurde mit dem Vertag von Versailles fortgesetzt.
Diese Strategie wurde nach 1990 einfach wiederholt (Wolfowitz-Doktrin/US-imperialistischer Machtanspruch mit „US-Primärität“ als oberste Priorität). Niedergeschrieben, für alle sichtbar. Nur diesmal ist das Ziel ein anders: diesmal waren die Ziele der Globalen Strategie China und Russland. Nur wurden diesmal die „neuen Rivalen“ weiter nach Osten verlagert. Das Endziel unsere außereuropäischen Freunden ist China niederzuringen, wie es einst Europa niedergerungen hat, in dem es die sogenannte „Freude“ und globale Nachbarn als Werkzeuge wie auf ein „Schachbrett“ einsetzt und mit eine Strategie namens „Teile und Herrsche“ steuert.
Die ewigen Einkreiser werden ihren eigenen verdorbenen Standpunkt niemals zugeben, weil sie sich aufgrund der Realitäten, die sie ihren Nachbarn auferlegt haben, besser „fühlen“ und nicht beabsichtigen, einer einfachen moralischen Logik zu folgen: der GOLDENEN REGEL: „Was du nicht willst, dass man dir antut, das füg auch keinem anderen zu.“ Möchten Sie, dass man Sie bedrängt und einkreist? Dann tun Sie es auch keinem anderen an. Wenn man sich nicht an eine so einfache Logik halten kann, muss man der „Logik“ der Kausalität folgen. Der Fluch des ursprunglichen europäischen Irrtums.
Wenn der Erste Weltkrieg 1919 durch einen wirklich fairen Vertrag beendet worden wäre, hätte es keinen „Zweiten Weltkrieg“ gegeben und nichts von dem, was nach 1919 passiert ist, wäre passiert. Tatsache ist, dass die Planer in London, Washington DC und Paris während des Ersten Weltkriegs bereits 1918 ihren Krieg gegen Russland planten und „neue beste Freunde“ (Osteuropäer) brauchten, die sie als Stellvertreter opfern konnten, um den Großteil des Kämpfens und Sterbens zu übernehmen, während sie sich zurückhielten und ihre Marinen nutzten, um „an den Rändern“ Russlands zu knabbern und später mit SYSTEMISCHER EXPANSION und systemischem Profit und Gewinn einzugreifen. Warum ist das eine „Tatsache“? Weil es tatsächlich passiert ist.
Vertrauen Sie dem Albion einmal, und Sie sind für immer in seinen „Fängen“.
Heute?
Die Geschichte wiederholt sich.
Albion 2.0
Jeder, der „glaubt“, dass der 1./2. Weltkrieg jemals „zu Ende“ ging ist bereits ein Narr der sich für die systematische Expansion und den Gewinn von „Freunden“ opfert. Der Krieg wurde nur durch eine kurze kalte Verschnaufpause (Kalter Krieg) unterbrochen, und dann ging der Marsch weiter gen Osten. Jetzt streben sie den "Zweiten Kalten Krieg" an, weil sie glauben wieder als "Held und Gewinner" am Ende da zu stehen.
Die Marschroute des Imperiums, die begann als die UdSSR Ende der 1980er Jahre wirtschaftlich ins Straucheln geriet.
Systemische/ideologische Expansion als konzertierte Anstrengung.
- Osteuropa.
- Balkan.
- Kaukasusregion/Schwarzes Meer (südliche Zange des Vormarsches).
- Baltikum/Skandinavien (nördliche Zange des Vormarsches).
Dies war einfach die Fortsetzung des Plans zur Überwältigung Russlands aus dem 1. Weltkrieg, um die durch drei Jahre Krieg (1914-17) entstandene Schwäche auszunutzen und alles zu erschöpfen und auszudehnen. Daher war es nie im „Interesse“ der Sieger, ein faires Kräftegleichgewicht in Europa zu erreichen, wie es 1815 der Fall war (Balance of Power/Concert of Europe). Die Absicht bestand darin, ein Ungleichgewicht zu schaffen, das ausgenutzt werden konnte, unabhängig davon, was die politischen Tauben dachten, was sie damit taten.
Jetzt nach dem Kalten Krieg marschieren und marschieren Sie weiter, und wenn es eine Reaktion oder einen Widerstand (auch bekannt als „defensiver Realismus“) seitens derjenigen gibt, die bedrängt oder eingekreist werden, beginnen Sie mit dem „Fingerzeigen“ (narrative Kontrolle). Diese Art imperialistischen Verhaltens, wie es Washington DC und sein unterwürfiger „kollektiver Westen/NATO“ zeigen, begann nicht erst nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Fragen Sie die First Nations oder Mexiko.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Africa (most of whom are beautiful shades of brown and the followers of various religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Africa and the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in Africa and the ME) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Only a fool would indiscriminately kill potential allies (Christians trapped in a dictatorial state), in order to save people who would stick a knife in their back as a matter of ideology the minute they got the chance to do so (Communists).
Sun Tzu said: "In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to capture an entire army, a regiment or company rather than to destroy it."
Allied leaders: leTs toTally deStroy the baLance of powEr and thEn hope thAt commIes are honeSt anD decEnt
The Western Allies "sowed" death and "reaped" 50 years of Cold War, which (as we know today) almost lead to the end of mankind on half a dozen occasions (MAD). Of course, if it hadn't been for the divide and rule policies of the previous alpha in the world (London), there need never have been "Nazis" and "commies" to fight in the first place...
In 1941, a smart leadership would have let the nazis and commies "slug it out" to mutual destruction, seeing how they were sworn enemies.
Recipe for success?
Only support the losing side as much so they don't collapse, but not enough to win outright.
And to all those, "...but my dadda fought for the right side"-comments: Do you know who enabled WW2, because he wanted your grandparents/parents to die?
Stalin.
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
Roosevelt and Stalin: leTs saVe thE cOmmieS so wE caN fIght tHem in 5 yEars...
No wonder the cute "Uncle Joe" Stalin was always smiling.
He couldn't have found a bigger bunch of fools if searched for them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...wind, wind, whirlwind, hurricane, game over...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@francisyockey2215 Yes, that is correct.
Tu quoque is, however, not a "Christian" value.
To break through the eternal cycle of violence, hatred, war, conquest, suppression, oppression, and domination... with the constant scream of "you TOOOOO" [but, but, but..."they" did it too :-)], Jesus created "do onto others".
You dig?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
THE RULES BASED ORDER
Making the "rules" is very profitable for oneself.
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."[end of]
During most of the previous centuries America's allies and foes in Europe burned in order to achieve primacy for the USA with a pattern of aligned/allied relationships before 1945, and after 1945 are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships".
It is how divide and rule is implemented. Set up European and Eurasian nations against each other in a (quote) "pattern of relationships."
Look for the patterns, and see the technique.
The people don't need a political "rules based order", because the wise use the GOLDEN RULE.
Do unto others, as you wish to done onto.
Do not do to others, as one does not wish to be done onto.
------------------------------------
With regards to the current mess called "Europe", just remember what was agreed following the collapse of the USSR.
"The Charter of Paris for a New Europe (also known as the Paris Charter) was adopted by a summit meeting of most European governments in addition to those of Canada, the United States and the Soviet Union, in Paris from 19–21 November 1990. The charter was established on the foundation of the Helsinki Accords and was further amended in the 1999 Charter for European Security. Together, these documents form the agreed basis for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. However, not all OSCE member countries have signed the treaty." (wiki)
One of the key points agreed upon, and signed into being, was that no member state would engage in behaviour which would undermine the security concerns of another member state or signatory. Now let's leave it to the finger pointers and obfuscators who will happily point you in the wrong direction with regards to whose fault it was that the spirit of these accords (dove work) were untangled, step-by-step in the same way the spirit of the Concert of Europe (post-1815) was once undermined, step-by-step.
Here is one point the finger pointers will however never address: Why any European state, specifically those who stand most to gain, in the middle of Europe/Eurasia, and who would gain most from European/Eurasian unity, would set out to create division.
It is easy to see how the Paris Charter (1990), if abided by to the letter would have lead to unity in Europe, and by extension also to Eurasia if Russia had used their location as link between Europe and East Asia.
However, history has shown that every intention to create unity automatically triggers an instinct in ... ahem... "some people" to destroy it, by use of proxies, or directly: in steps "NATO enlargement" as the means to inject dissension into a formatting unity.
The intentions of the doves wishing unity, interacting with the strategizing and cajoling of the hawks of division.
1
-
1
-
Re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl/Historian)
Today, the USA has practically admitted that it misuses smaller nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the current war in the Ukraine:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.” Taken from a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region. In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script". Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" or "using little nations" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
Some things never change...
"The policy which Britain has been pursuing for the last two centuries has brought her prosperity and greatness. After each victory, Britain seems, on the surface to have gained for herself no advantage whatever; all she did, she claimed to be an act of international chivalry and justice but a deeper analysis of British statesmen's claims reveals that they never speak the truth. Britain's key policy is to attack the strongest country with the help of weaker countries and then to join the weakened enemy in checking the growth of other countries and so on, and so on. British foreign policy has remained basically unchanged for two centuries. When Britain befriends or colonizes another country, the purpose is not to maintain a cordial friendship for the sake of friendship but to utilize that country as a tool to fight all threats to her supremacy. Therefore Britain always remains in a commanding position by making other countries fight her wars while she herself reaps the fruits of victory." Taken from The Vital Problem of China by Sun Yat-Sen, 1917
Should we eternally defend these long-dead historical "lords" who sacrificed pawns so their own crumbling "Empire" could survive a few more years?
Whilst these "fine gentlemen" in suites and bowler hats, scrambled to invent tax havens to safeguard the riches they had looted and raked in for a few hundred years, they used emotional arguments to cause outrage in times of crises, or sent the lower classes scrambling for the muddy trenches in times of war...
These tax havens they created spared their own obscene wealth, while the middle-classes and poor "masses" bore the burden of "Empire".
These fine elites sacrificed pawns following a "priority list": first to go were the "pawns" abroad, then followed by such in the own country, while skimming the cream off the top for themselves.
After WW1, they already knew "Empire" was on the way out, but preferred playing the game (strategies) with human lives just a little longer.
(Evidence: Search for The Spider's Web documentary on the Timeline Channel, here on YT).
Though it isn't possible to say when the American Century will go down in the same way as the British Empire once did, I will predict what will happen.
Maybe it will last another dozen years.
Maybe two-dozen.
Maybe even another fifty years...
Who knows?
Whatever.
The first "hedge fund manager"-types are already betting against the US dollar as the world reserve currency.
Such "hewoes" and "patwiots", lol
They will take their accrued "assets", and and the obscene wealth and profits raked in over the past American Century, to tax havens WHEN America's "century" implodes: leaving millions of middle-class and poor Americans to rub their eyes while wondering wtf happened...
History will repeat itself, unless the hegemon changes its deceitful ways (Google: "What does the Bible say about deceitful friends", to discover how history repeats itself in endless cycles).
The Founding Fathers once described London as “rich, proud, hectoring, swearing, squibbing, carnivorous” (Jefferson), therefore the perfect type of character flaws in a nation's leadership which one can "smear honey around the mouth", then infiltrate and then overpower: Which is what the USA did after 1895, "starting" with the first Venezuela Crisis.
Didn't anybody notice?
Washington DC sold out the "protection" they had offered to a "little nation" called Venezuela in the form of the Monroe Doctrine, as a sacrificial gift to London, and a "friendship" which could drive a wedge between arising European attempts at more unity.
Nope.
Nobody noticed.
Today, the new rich, proud, hectoring, swearing, squibbing, carnivorous "rulers of the world" in Washington DC are imitating exactly what they critized a quarter of a century before.
1
-
Strategic ambiguity is generally defined as "purposefully being vague to derive personal or organizational benefit." Zaremba, A. J. (2010).
Or as the street would say, "sticking the finger in every pie possible everywhere, anytime, but mum's the word..."
Effect: Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.
Too much intent on short-term gain, at the expense of long-term stability, leads to the foundations of an empire (any "empire") or corporation turning into the "clay" of the famous symbolism/idiom: Warrior with clay feet.
In this regard, the turn of the previous century (around 1900) offers many examples of "nails in the coffin" of the British Empire, and allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 to expire, rather than morphing it into something more suitable for the times, is an example of "clay feet" rapidly being created. Along with similar turn of the century examples, like the 2nd Boer War, and not pushing for a more united Europe, being other examples of "clay feet" created which evtl. led to the topling of the "warrior" called the British Empire.
The most compelling argument (on the surface) against renewing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 was made by Canada. Of course the fear of being dragged into of a war between Japan and the USA via London/GB/British Empire, for whatever reason, would have hit Canada hardest. Therefore an argument against a treaty with Japan is compelling...but also false.
At the time, the issue was mainly China.
Fact: The isn't a single example of a nation or state being "forced" into a war its hawks did not already find desirable or inevitable, etc.
It would have been fairly simple to morph the existing Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1911, to exclude any acts of provocation or aggression by either signatory. That way, in case it was Japan which was pushing for trouble, London/GB could have taken action to restrict it (by making it clear that Japan would be on its own if it provoked a war with the USA, and ignored warnings in re. to such actions). Another factor often forgotten, is that within the British Empire, the Domininions had gained the rights to declare war themselves. Unlike colonies like India, which London held the right to declare war on behalf of, nobody could force Canada to become involved in a war, and a declaration of neutrality was always an option. Of course, in a decent world, nobody would dare invade a neutral, so that Canada was safe under all foreseeable circumstances (at least "de jure").
The argument "Empire potentialy drawn into a war started by Japan" at some point after WW1 is invalid, and therefore other reasons for not extending the treaty must have existed, which are clouded by secrecy even up to today.
In regards to keeping the Anglo-Japanese Treaty intact, and granting the Japanese nation the "honor" of becoming equals at Versailles.
According to Machiavelli, it would also have been a wise step towards saving the British Empire (along with ending the short-sighted European habit of "creating pariahs per treaty"). The argument usually raised here is "yeah..but the Japs didn't want everybody to be racially equal, so duh..."
True.
The "totally un-racist" London (lol) could have outflanked the equally racist leaders in Tokyo, who just advocated "racial equality" for themselves of course, and advocated for "racial equality" as a general obligation or declaration of intent, for all races.
Machiavelli...
What did Machiavelli say about the real value of mercenary armies you must pay (money as incentive) to do own bidding?
"And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress; and mercenaries doing nothing except damage." Nicolo Machiavelli, 1505
Obviously, money is a great incentive to "sign up" for something, but it offers less incentive to die for a cause one isn't exactly a fan of...
Starting around 1900, but especially after the financial "slap on the wrist" of WW1, the Lords in London could have, and should have turned masses of "inferiors" within their crumbling Empire into a "Pound block of equals".
They could have turned the masses of "inferiors" all over the world, into "armies of equals".
The old strategies again proving themselves almost 100% correct, for when the time came (1940) GB found itself "alone on the beaches and in the hills", rather than have millions of "equals" turning up to fight for a common cause. Own previous failures, simply offered the incentive for "masses of inferiors" to "sit on the fence" to await the outcome for own causes. Combined in mutually beneficial alliances, rather than "inferior mercenanies" which came from mere "colonies", to create mutually protecting dominion-like independent/suzerein states in a re-organized soft-power empire was the option not taken. Unfortunately, the spineless and equally racist "hero lords" in London, unwilling to stand up to wrongs, did not understand even this most simplest of logic, and therefore lost their inheritance (Empire).
"The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonorably, foolishly, viciously." Julian Barnes
Everything you've been made to recite as a "chest thump/cool move"-moment in history, like Versailles or allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty to lapse without a replacement, was simply just another nail in their own coffin of "Empire".
The gatekeepers in London (starting "around 1900"), a total failure.
Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.
You don't become "the best", if you finger-point at someone "bad".
You don't become "high IQ", if you consider someone else "low IQ".
You don't become "smart", if you laugh at someone termed "stupid".
You don't become "more superior" if you look down at someone you've demoted to "inferior".
1
-
1
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemon.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quite or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
1
-
Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar.
Washington DC s strategy is constant, using a geographical position of power.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equillibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equillibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to, and gaslighting the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequillibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They paid the price later on.
Re. "Who benefited most from Mers, and who lost most".
The general consensus is that The British Empire was the "winner", and that "France was the loser".
Wrong.
Reality? For the second time in 20 years, "the lights would go out", and others would benefit. Because, the type of rule or economy plays little role in the outcome of whether one "rules the world" or not.
Geography plays a far bigger role.
So at the turn of century London "ruled the world" because geography isolated them from the continent and their island status gave them the upper hand at a time when war was still the common way to determine "top dog" or not....
When development of weapons produced ever further reaching weapons of war, GB's island status did not offer the same measure of protection anymore...so they went down.
The weapons of 1900 couldn't harm the British Empire, but the weapons of 1945 could....
In that era around WW2, it was the USA which was (as the sole power) isolated from this "great game", and benefited as the result of its geographical isolation, and because there was that "one ring which ruled them all"...lol, but in a good way of course.
And it wasn't only the forces of evil who wanted to "rule the world", but also people who thought they had a God-given right to do so...
[Google: The American_Century]
...and who thought they were better than everybody else...
1
-
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
This is the theory.
According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules.
According to the concept of "meaning of words" all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, "false flagged" into being, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.
-------------------------------------
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. Therefore, it's not an accident that General Hodges, who's been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics. This is the intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Pilsudski (edit: post-WW1 Polish dream of power in the wake of Russian and German weakness) dreamt of. This is this is the solution for the United States. ... For the United States: The primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
Yes, that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
Thta includes this current war in the Ukraine" which was not avoid by the USA/NATO even if it could have been avoided by very simple diplomatic means around the year 2000 (comprehensive European security agreement which incl. Russia).
Several historians like Richard Overy (GB) and Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) have continuously and conclusively come to this conclusion, based on the study of historical data. It is not a "conspiracy theory." That IS the premier priority.
Here are the critical questions.
If that is the realization, then HOW were the naval powers going to implement such continental Eurasian/European division?
How were, both currently and historically, London and Washington DC going to (quote) "make sure that that doesn't happen"?
Answer: Proactively implement the "divide and rule"-technique of power.
1
-
The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@billyandrew Thank you.
Are you a citizen of the world, and wish to contribute a small share to end the grip the global elites have on the narrative of history?
Are you American, or European? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from the multitude of military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any platform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Why do we know this? Because good people have been voting, and posting, and debating, and using their freedom of speech, and protesting for hundreds of years, but the grip the elites have on the plebs has NEVER changed.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unraveling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting all international big brands.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small local companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever and whenever possible. It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone," or "but, but, but...your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be perfect...
Methodology: JDI and make it a long term lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk trend, because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate interests. Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small local companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country? Do you wish to fight meddling globalist empires?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influential GLOBAL ELITES only REALLY start "caring" (sic.) when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
Geopolitics links what you write, to the big picture.
There is a fracture zone between the big global players (USA/EU, Russia, China) running from the North Pole, through the Baltic States, Poland and Ukraine, via the Caucasus towards Israel. Another fracture zone is the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa(incl. Turkiye and Israel), from there through India, SE Asia (incl. Vietnam), through Taiwan, thd Koreas, Japan, back up to the North Pole.
Expect Washington DC to instigate crises and wars EVERYWHERE on this "fracture zone," because it is the only way they can hang on the the good ol' days a bit longer: their role of the sole hegemon of the world, of the American Century.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree.
But Chow is an ideologue.
Religion is an ideology.
The founding fathers recognized that, and separated church and state.
With their current propaganda, channels like PragerU are trying to erase that border, by telling only half the story, in order to incite outrage...
Of course PragerU is not going to point out that Chow offered unsolicited advice about her own lifestyle, stating that it is to be considered "good and true", then linked it to a political decision that she made which impacted the lives of others ("simulated" in a college environment, of course).
Here's the deal:
People aspiring to politics, should keep their opinions to themselves, and honor the separation of church and state.
The Declaration of Independence grants every American the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness". Whether it agrees with Madam Chow's lifestyle, is irrelevant, and she should keep her "advice" to herself...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global "balance of power", to avoid a few million gaining at the expense of billions, as the USA/collective West has done these past 500 years.
I'm sure Chinese and Russian leaders will imnediately agree to this, and our US/collective West will do as they've always done: pretend to wish to "sign up for it" overtly and ostentatiously (doves), but use deception to torpedo such attempts of global equillibrium covertly (hawks).
Good cop (neolibs), bad cop (neocon).
Divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It "started" quite innocently, way before WW2.
With a London policy.
I'm sure the British population and the inhabitants of Empire would have been happy if their toffs hadn't made Germany the enemy as a default setting.
The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting...
[britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power]
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.
It came first before all other considerations.
It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding
1) alliances
2) treaties (or no treaties)
3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord)
4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle)
5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint)
6) when to engage in arms races
7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences
Go over your history, and see its handwriting all around...
Enjoy.
1
-
1
-
Imperialists are again, after a short break, "organizing" their "violence" as the imperialistic aim and goal. To attain the rule (de jure) and domination (de facto) of the own systems OVER other independent systems which were in any particular place in the world first (aka a given status quo on the timeline of history).
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do."
Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
Their most powerful strategy is the tried and successful "divide and rule." Beware!
Qui bono?
Correct, the upper 1% or so of society. Study what happened in the past, and you can foresee the future of the USA.
What did British elites, their 1%-ters, do as the "Empire" collapsed around them after WW2?
Correct answer: they took their assests to the tax havens they had already created for themselves, leaving the rest of British society to try and pick the cart out of the rut...
And there, America, is your future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dennisg4053 Well, I guess making dictators and terrorists friends as a matter of policy didn't work out overall.
You know, "seeds" sown needing to be "reaped" at some point....
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Training "terrorists" and arming brutal dictators?
How'd that work out?
1
-
1
-
In 1914, Wilhelm II the Superimperialist set out to bring the British Empire to its knees and rule the world.
Of course, everybody knows this was the focus of his entire existence...his sole purpose in life.
Evidence? The famous "September Program" as his crowning achievement in finally getting on with "bringing the British Empire to its knees" which Wilhelm II the Superimperialist suitably commented on and concluded with a speech on the 3rd September ending thus : “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory...”
The crowning achievement of his entire existence and rule of course, as everybody knows, was to finally "bring the British Empire to its knees". Everybody knows Wilhelm II obsessed and fused about the powerful British Empire from the minute he woke up every morning, until the time he fell asleep every night.
Only...
...the speech...
...was not by Wilhelm II, and the date was not 1914.
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt.
On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
After both World Wars, the crowds understandably cheered the end of the war...
Meanwhile as the crowds cheered, in the background, big daddy USA ate up the British Empire and turned it into the junior associate power.
Where are all the BBC documentaries informing the public about these postwar events?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DJCUk Personally I would have chosen "causal effect" or "blowback".
I do not think that people, any people "deserve to die" (unless cold blooded murderers).
Not in New York, not in Syria, not in Iran, nowhere.
That said, 9/11 happened. There was never much talk at the time about why it happened, and the emotional outrage took over (for obvious reasons).
Now, some 20 years later it is time to finally start talking about the blowback of US policies in the ME for more than 70 years since Eisenhower "started it" in the 1950s.
Not only the lives lost, but also the trillions of dollars wasted which could have been spent more constructively.
Here's the thing.
It can't go on like this. The Cold War is long over.
The USA must rethink their policy (probably something along the lines of PNAC: Project for the New American Century), and abandon Iran, Iraq, and Syria to Moscow and Beijing, and focus on the southern half of the Arabian Peninsula.
It is obviously a Washington - Moscow - Beijing dispute.
Maybe some kind of deal is possible, but the USA must stop their personal dispute with Teheran (revenge for the humiliating failure of the hostage rescue after the embassy occupation?).
1
-
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a "bark" by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of "divider" was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the "playground" during the Cold War). Moscow was tacidly nodding off the observed reality, without too much interference at this point in time, since gaining full spectrum domination in Eastern Europe was more important at the time.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
§§§footnote
The concept of the "straight out lie" is related to a variety of other terms within the spectrum of "political techniques," commonly defined as "strategic ambiguity;" and/or incl. such concepts as "lying by omitting," misdirection, misconstrued, spinning, framing, all either intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally.
1
-
So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage.
Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating families. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Never a "price tag" for own actions...
Right?
WRONG
Brits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends".
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world"...
And after the war ended?
They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946).
Did they ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on in an effort to save the Empire, if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not.
Washington DC needed a lapdog, not an equal partner...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
Hop over here for a "temporary best fwiend" this year, then hop over there for a "temporary best fwiend" the next.
Hop, hop, hop...into extinction.
Sad...
A "nation" which needs to bomb women and kids to "have hope" or inspiration even during hard times, does not deserve to "rule the world".
The post-WW2 bankrupcy was not only financial, but also moral...
Good riddance to "ruling the world" then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
1
-
OK, the big picture then.
Unfortunately, although declared wisely, WW2 was implemented unwisely...
Churchill or the other lords were still "fighting the last war", as that saying goes.
In their effort to hang on to their Empire, they made the wrong "friends"...
One their one side, there was the USA. But Washington DC followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up people/territory/powers" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
And the other "friends"?
On the other side of Europe, there was the other "friend": Stalin.
Stalin however, figured out that the Washington DC wouldn't sacrifice US soldiers just so that London could have a few "percentages" of influence in Central Europe...
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement
Stalin: "I'll tear this up this scrap of paper now. What are you going to do about it?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@staciasmith5162 Correct.
This is how all "divide and rule"-setups work, regardless of the tier.
Imperfect systems are not meant to be fair, they are meant to be imperfect, and remain so perpetually.
Despite such terms as "democracy" and "capitalism", which are not MEANT to be fair, but rather to OVERrepresent the existing systems of power perpetually. These systems remain pyramidical in shape, regardless of whatever human system is implemented, which is reality (observation), not idealism (words = an "-ism" = ideology). A large base of the powerless, to which words like "democracy" at least give the semblance of fairness in order to keep the peace; but the top always remains very small. Imagine a 3d pyramid filled with "bubbles" (systems) with many bullies (see below comments thread), which however cannot all be at the top of the pyramid (observation).
Throughout history, this realistic system has been depicted as pyramids, because it is the reality of civlisations, gained by observation.
Not being fair, and not having to be fair ("might is right" as advocated by many as a fair system), means perpetuating eternal systems in which "divide and rule/conquer" thrives, as systems are set up against other systems, and use their "freedumb" to talk, and talk, and talk, and talk It is an imperfect system, which is not capable of change, as is not MEANT to be capable of change.
It is meant to perpetuate the system of divide and rule/conquer, at all levels of human interaction, right on to the top. That means one can compare any system, and reach the same conclusion with regards to people who complain about something which "is not fair": the divide and rule setup IT IS NOT MEANT BE FAIR.
The "people" (demos) are not MEANT to have power.
The minute they strive to overpower the systems of divide and rule/conquer, some or other emergency or new cultural outrage, or a crisis or a war, or whatever, will pop up to create disunity. Really observant members of society, like Maya Angelou ("...with rings through our noses...") and many others have recognized this reality a loooooong time ago, but their words fall on the deaf ears of the masses which are so eternally divided.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Two things would have stopped.
1) more gun free zones, guarded by professionals, just like during the Wild West. During the Wild West, frontier towns were gun free zones, and everybody who tried to sneak past was automatically branded. Since gun free zones don't have dozens of hillbillies running around with guns, shouting "I'm the good guy with the gun", the authorities can zero in on the criminal in seconds.
Here, it worked, and there were 3 innocent victims and not dozens.
Gun free zones work.
2) A nationwide, restricted gun law plus standard test on ability (same as driving) would restrict access to firearms to vetted and trained "good guys".
In this example, the guns had to be bought outside state.
He had no access to firearms, and if there had been a similar law nationwide, he could not have bought a weapon. Period (note, black market prices quickly double and tripple).
Gun control works.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PragerU is not telling the whole story.
They are using a propaganda method called "lying by omitting".
Here is what happened, and the timeline is important.
It is Miss Chow who "started it" by wanting to restrict fellow Americans' unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and happiness" and trying to impose her own convictions onto others .
Trying to restrict another American's rights, not based on a factual argument (say, restricting gun rights because of the many deaths), but using one's own "feelings" is un-American.
That means not understanding basic rights , as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
She didn't choose for herself.
She made a political decision (simulated of course) that impacted others and that goes against the spirit it of separation of church and state as desired by the founding fathers.
She did not only "abstain", which is her right to do.
She hid behind her Bible, stating that is what made her choose the way she did. Obviously, it is her own convictions, but she blames her "god"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Agreed.
Great Britain did not "win" from the "divide and rule/conquer" system they had set up in Europe, as a matter of an own London policy standpoint of making the strongest continental power their "default rival/enemy" system.
Britons (average citizens) lost BIG TIME.
If you wish to truly understand the "how" and "why", then go to the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel.
The "oh so fine" British Lordships thought they could play divide and rule/conquer games with the world, and in the end British citizens lost bigtime, as their own Lordships "...ran off with all the f%cking money..." (quote = George Carlin/ reality = tax havens).
No, this is not a "conspiracy theory."
Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.
Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section):
Most of what we are fed by our systems, as "rote leaning" details, are "99% ancillary details": not saying these are untrue or wrong, but simply that they are not as important on the ranking or "tiers" of events as geopolitics and grand strategy.
For these geostrategists, divide and rule/conquer is their main strategy, regardless of what you as an individual believe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neilsmallhands Don't get bogged down by worrying about needless details.
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
In the late 20th century, the EU morphed from the example it intended to set for the world, into just another "empire" in search of systemic expansion, [see footnote] subjected to the whims of the "buck passer" USA, "pointing fingers" at another state/power and claiming this state is in search of territorial expansion...
It did so, right in front of the eyes of half a billion of its subjects, very few noticing this "shift.".
This is history rhyming.
Today, the EU is led by a bunch of weak and pathetic "leaders", is deceiving millions of its own inhabitants.
Oldest trick in the book.
Simply "exchange" a concept in geopolitics, and millions of people are then deceived by their own brain functions, because they suddenly cannot think straight, and are deceived by the "right/wrong"-dichotomy...
Footnote: NATO = a "state of affairs" within the "chessboard" (grand strategy) of states of affairs.
1
-
1
-
Here's what they tell us in our history books: "Versailles was justice for Brest-Litovsk."
I bet you that you, the reader, has heard some or other version of history as this being "the truth"...
You have heard and processed this, and stored it in your compartmentalized brain as "just how it is".
It's the "got what they deserved"-tier of reasoning.
It is in the same compartment of the brain, where the "good vs. the bad"-story is stored.
The filter by which all is judged in your own mind...
The comparison has been made so often, that 99% of the history fans can't even recognize that it is a false equivalence (geopolitics/grand strategy).
Here what they don't tell you:
That WW1 was a European showdown war (geopolitics) just like the Napoleonic Wars were a European showdown war, and therefore WW1 should have politically ended the same way the Napoleonic Wars ended. With a concert of powers, which included the "losers" as equals.
Since WW1 was a global war, and included the USA fighting in Europe, it should have logically ended with a treaty system which represented a GLOBAL balance of power. With a balance of power arrangement amongst equals which did not disadvantage any power, incl. the "losers." That is what the Concert of Europe aimed for at the end of the Napoleonic Wars: France (the loser) was invited, and not disadvantaged. In fact it left the war with a strategic advantage: The previous Central European powerhouse (not centred in Paris), the Holy Roman Empire was kept disunited, as carried out by Napoleon (geopolitically dislocated). This Holy Roman Empire of the German people, with various changing capital cities throughout the ages (Rome, Aachen, Vienna, Frankfort, Prague and Regensburg, etc.) was NOT resurrected by concert, which of course meant that the balance of power principle did not disadvantage France.
A different era, which resulted in 100 years of relative European peace, as long as all powers stuck to the consent of "balancing power" as THE main objective.
Here is what they did at Versailles.
The winners implemented a global IMBALANCE of power per dictate, which would advantage the OWN side, that of the off-continental powers, with their junior partner France in tow.
Once you fall for the logic of the unprincipled, you will become the eternal fool. They want YOU to fight, for the IMBALANCE of power.
Then, from a position of power, rule by division.
Yes, because that has always been the aim of the naval powers, Great Britain and the USA.
Keep the continent of Europe in a state of disruption.
Create an imbalance of powers, which benefit the own systems.
Those who wished to RULE THE WORLD, intend to create an imbalance of power, for own gain.
Brest-Litovsk = global balance of power per decree (without asking those affected, since monarchic principle)
Treaty of Versailles = global imbalance of power per decree (without asking those affected, since imperialist principle).
Treaty of Versailles.
Divide and rule/conquer.
The people of Europe were "divided" with a ruling by outside powers (off-continental states).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ASIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside systems can "surf in and skim off the profits". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS OR PERSONAL PRIORITIES
Most European people are far too daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive them too, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that they end up thinking everything they do is justified, with "only a few exceptions" in order to seem fair...
Has your nation, or a leader already been "chosen as a favorite son of the West"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have with neighbors aside, or settle them fast, and don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme. Actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples across all borders.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these Western "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU today, for the gain of the outside Western Powers, just like divide and rule sacrificed your grandparents and previous Asian generations during the Era of Imperialism...
------------------------
P.S.: I cannot personally post this message myself too often, since YT autoblocks it as "spam" if I copy and paste it under videos too often. I need YOUR help. In your own interest of safety, please spread this message with regards to the age-old "divide and rule"-strategy of outside (non-Asian) powers. Thank You.
1
-
1
-
"Divide and rule/conquer" is the biggest "Jedi mind trick" in history, and in current times.
The fictional "Jedi mind trick" is the fun way of saying how "powerful minds" can make inferior minds do exactly as determined, without the "inferior minds" realizing that they are being manipulated.
That part is however, not fiction.
Powerful strategists, often with names unknown to most people, can direct "weaker minds" in all classes of a society alike in almost equal share. Political leaders, the rich, the powerful/influencial, and commoners like the poor without much say can all become a part of the "Jedi mind tricks" of those creating the policies, even without direct knowledge.
Wisdom cannot be bought by money, so that ignorance, complacency, and indifference is widely spread on all levels of societies.
The makers of history, like those present at Versailles and other historical events were probably not even aware that their actions fitted the definition/criteria of "divide and rule/conquer".
A typical tactic of deflection is "throwing the hot potato" back with remarks like "well, OK...but everybody was doing it."
WRONG
"Divide and rule/conquer" has two parts.
1) the division of adversaries
2) the rule (or "dictating terms") such as Versailles
Yes, the "hot potato" being "thrown back" in defence is simply one side of the story.
Yes, eveybody can try to divide the opposition, and this is equally widespread in politics and sociology.
But not everybody can implement part 2), which is to "rule/dictate".
An example of this would be (as described in the comments thread) the statement that "The government of South Africa implemented strategies of divide and rule during the age of Apartheid in order to ensure the hegemony of a few (whites)."
One cannot now go "well, duh...everyone else did the same".
No, they could try "division" of the hegemons (white/ruling class), but the weaker side with little to offer has no way to impose/coerce the 2nd part, which is to then make a ruling or dictating terms.
"Divide and rule" as a concept is also only partly true.
*The main impact is that a power in a superior position grants access to its own resources (financial/industry/political dominance/technology/assets).
Access to power = leverage for own goals of minors.
That is the really intersting and crucial bit often left out in explanations re. "divide and rule/conquer".
Divide and rule works top down (superior power = make a ruling/dictate).
At best, sideways (equal power = conviction/reason as best strategy).
Never "bottom up" (best strategy = grovel/beg, lol).
The powerless "bottom" can try "Jedi mind tricking" their way towards power for all eternity until the smoke comes out of their ears, but without leverage, it is a fruitless endeavour.
1
-
1
-
Strategic ambiguity is generally defined as "purposefully being vague to derive personal or organizational benefit." Zaremba, A. J. (2010).
Or as the street would say, "sticking the finger in every pie possible everywhere, anytime, but mum's the word..."
Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.
Too much intent on short-term gain, at the expense of long-term stability, leads to the foundations of an empire (any "empire") or corporation turning into the "clay" of the famous symbolism/idiom: Warrior with clay feet.
In this regard, the turn of the previous century offers many examples of "nails in the coffin" of the British Empire, and allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 to expire, rather than morphing it into something more suitable for the times, is an example of "clay feet" rapidly being created. Along with similar turn of the century examples, like the 2nd Boer War, and not pushing for a more united Europe, being other examples of "clay feet" created which evtl. led to the topling of the "warrior" called the British Empire.
The most compelling argument (on the surface) against renewing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 was made by Canada. Of course the fear of being dragged into of a war between Japan and the USA via London/GB/British Empire, for whatever reason, would have hit Canada hardest. Therefore an argument against a treaty with Japan is compelling...but also false.
At the time, the issue was mainly China.
Fact: The isn't a single example of a nation or state being "forced" into a war its hawks did not already find desirable or inevitable, etc.
It would have been fairly simple to morph the existing Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1911, to exclude any acts of provocation or aggression by Japan. That way, in case it was Japan which was pushing for trouble, London/GB could have taken action to restrict it (by stating that Japan would be on its own if it provoked a war with the USA, and ignoring warnings in re. to such). Another factor often forgotten, is that within the British Empire, the Domininions had gained the rights to declare war themselves. Unlike colonies like India, which London held the right to declare war on behalf of, nobody could force Canada to become involved in a war, and a declaration of neutrality was always an option.
Of course, in a decent world, nobody would dare invade a neutral, so that Canada was safe under all foreseeable circumstances (at least "de jure").
The argument "Empire potentialy drawn into a war started by Japan" at some point after WW1 is invalid, and therefore other reasons for not extending the treaty must have existed, which are clouded by secrecy even up to today.
In regards to keeping the Anglo-Japanese Treaty intact, and granting the Japanese nation the "honor" of becoming equals at Versailles.
According to Machiavelli, it would also have been a wise step towards saving the British Empire (along with ending the short-sighted European habit of "creating pariahs per treaty"). The argument usually raised here is "yeah..but the Japs didn't want everybody to be racially equal, so duh..."
True.
The "totally un-racist" London (lol) could have outflanked the equally racist leaders in Tokyo, who just advocated "racial equality" for themselves of course, and advocated for "racial equality" as a general obligation or declaration of intent, for all races.
Machiavelli...
What did Machiavelli say about the real value of mercenary armies you must pay (money as incentive) to do own bidding?
"And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress; and mercenaries doing nothing except damage." Nicolo Machiavelli, 1505
Obviously, money is a great incentive to "sign up" for something, but it offers less incentive to die for a cause one isn't exactly a fan of...
Starting around 1900, but especially after the financial "slap on the wrist" of WW1, the Lords in London could and should have turned masses of "inferiors per desired outcome" in their crumbling Empire into a "Pound block of equals".
They could have turned the masses of "inferiors" all over the world, into "armies of equals".
The old strategies again proving themselves almost 100% correct, for when the time came (1940) GB found itself "alone on the beaches and in the hills", rather than have millions of "equals" turning up to fight for a common cause. Own previous failures, simply offered the incentive for "masses of inferiors" to "sit on the fence" to await the outcome for own causes.
Combined in mutually beneficial alliances, rather than "inferior mercenies" which came from "colonies", to create mutually protecting dominion-like independent/suzerein states in a re-organized soft-power empire was the option not taken. Unfortunately, the spineless and equally racist "hero lords" in London, unwilling to stand up to wrongs, did not understand even this most simplest of logic, and therefore lost their inheritance (Empire).
"The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonorably, foolishly, viciously." Julian Barnes
Everything you've been made to recite as a "chest thump/cool move"-moment in history, like Versailles or allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty to lapse without a replacement, simply just another nail in their own coffin of "Empire".
The gatekeepers in London (starting "around 1900"), a total failure.
Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.
You don't become "the best", if you finger-point at someone "bad".
You don't become "high IQ", if you consider someone else "low IQ".
You don't become "smart", if you laugh at someone "stupid".
You don't become "more superior" if you look down at someone you've termed "inferior".
1
-
1
-
Watch this post-WW2 newsreel.
"Wrecked railroads, power plants, factories and coal mines at Ruhr Valley in Germany...HD Stock Footage"
(Copy and paste into YT search bar)
Notice, how at 2.00 minutes into this video, the narrator mentions that "...75% of the Ruhr Area's industry survived the war..."
The often repeated narrative of "running out of targets" is a lie.
Google the fates of dozens of factories which survived the war in various states of functionality: Mauser in Oberndorf, Volkswagen in Wolfsburg, the BMW works in Munich (dismantled in Oct 1945, and sent to the SU), the Ford plant in Niehl, etc., etc., etc.
Did you know that the rather easy to hit, MASSIVE coal fired electric plants (generating around two thirds of Germany's electric power) was simply forgotten, even though it was listed in the MEW (British Ministry of Economic Warfare) Target Books as a high priority in 1939/40?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
British leaders ended the war under the rather childish delusion that their "best fwiends" were going to let them become a nuclear power in 1945.
The question then, why it took GB 7 years after WW2, to carry out their 1st nuclear test, even though the technology had already been developed by international scientist (also British) before 1945.
Because its the American Century for those who walk the corridors of power, and fairy tales of the "Big Three" and "cute Uncle Joe" for those who don't understand how the world really works...
Because in WW2 the concept of "a Big Three" was a joke, because the "big three" were not only allies, but also rivals.
Each wanting to be on top once the war was over...
At the turn of the century, nothing symbolized power and rule like the big gun battleships, and by 1945 nothing symbolized power and rule like the mushroom cloud of a nuke...
But while at the end of WW1 the powers got together and divided and negotiated who would get what share of the "symbol of power (Washington Naval Treaty, 1922), at the end of WW2, there would be no such negotiations.
Strange...
Big daddy USA said to the rest of the world "you shall not have nuclear weapons!"
[Google how that unfolded with: "history/british-nuclear-program]
Strange, how "best friend forever" would let the financially drained GB spend 5 years and millions of Pounds on developing a weapon for themselves which was already completed in development...and just had to be handed over to "a friend"...
Strange also, that during WW2 GB merrily gave their "special friend" all the best war-winning secrets (Tizzard Committee, and all that), but when it became time for the "new best friend" to return the favor, and give the secret of nuclear arms back to GB whose scientists had helped develop nukes in the USA, the answer was "no, it's mine".
1945 Washington DC: "If you want nukes, develop them yourself. In the meantime, I'll dismantle your empire. What are you going to do about it?"
That's how leverage works.
Rule Britannia, replaced by the American Century.
Pax Britannica, replaced by Pax Americana.
Why didn't Washington DC/The American Century give their "special friends" the secret of nuclear bombs in 1945?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Strategic ambiguity is generally defined as "purposefully being vague to derive personal or organizational benefit." Zaremba, A. J. (2010).
Or as the street would say, "sticking the finger in every pie possible everywhere, anytime, but mum's the word..."
Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.
Too much intent on short-term gain, at the expense of long-term stability, leads to the foundations of an empire (any "empire") or corporation turning into the "clay" of the famous symbolism/idiom: Warrior with clay feet.
In this regard, the turn of the previous century offers many examples of "nails in the coffin" of the British Empire, and allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 to expire (see below comment), rather than morphing it into something more suitable for the times, is an example of "clay feet" rapidly being created. Along with similar turn of the century examples, like the 2nd Boer War, and not pushing for a more united Europe, being other examples of "clay feet" created which evtl. led to the topling of the "warrior" called the British Empire.
The most compelling argument (on the surface) against renewing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 was made by Canada. Of course the fear of being dragged into of a war between Japan and the USA via London/GB/British Empire, for whatever reason, would have hit Canada hardest. Therefore an argument against a treaty with Japan is compelling...but also false.
At the time, the issue was mainly China.
Fact: The isn't a single example of a nation or state being "forced" into a war its hawks did not already find desirable or inevitable, etc.
It would have been fairly simple to morph the existing Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1911, to exclude any acts of provocation or aggression by Japan. That way, in case it was Japan which was pushing for trouble, London/GB could have taken action to restrict it (by stating that Japan would be on its own if it provoked a war with the USA, and ignoring warnings in re. to such). Another factor often forgotten, is that within the British Empire, the Domininions had gained the rights to declare war themselves. Unlike colonies like India, which London held the right to declare war on behalf of, nobody could force Canada to become involved in a war, and a declaration of neutrality was always an option.
Of course, in a decent world, nobody would dare invade a neutral, so that Canada was safe under all foreseeable circumstances (at least "de jure").
The argument "Empire potentialy drawn into a war started by Japan" at some point after WW1 is invalid, and therefore other reasons for not extending the treaty must have existed, which are clouded by secrecy even up to today.
In regards to keeping the Anglo-Japanese Treaty intact, and granting the Japanese nation the "honor" of becoming equals at Versailles.
According to Machiavelli, it would also have been a wise step towards saving the British Empire (along with ending the short-sighted European habit of "creating pariahs per treaty"). The argument usually raised here is "yeah..but the Japs didn't want everybody to be racially equal, so duh..."
True.
The "totally un-racist" London (lol) could have outflanked the equally racist leaders in Tokyo, who just advocated "racial equality" for themselves of course, and advocated for "racial equality" as a general obligation or declaration of intent, for all races.
Machiavelli...
What did Machiavelli say about the real value of mercenary armies you must pay (money as incentive) to do own bidding?
"And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress; and mercenaries doing nothing except damage." Nicolo Machiavelli, 1505
Obviously, money is a great incentive to "sign up" for something, but it offers less incentive to die for a cause one isn't exactly a fan of...
Starting around 1900, but especially after the financial "slap on the wrist" of WW1, the Lords in London could and should have turned masses of "inferiors per desired outcome" in their crumbling Empire into a "Pound block of equals".
They could have turned the masses of "inferiors" all over the world, into "armies of equals".
The old strategies again proving themselves almost 100% correct, for when the time came (1940) GB found itself "alone on the beaches and in the hills", rather than have millions of "equals" turning up to fight for a common cause. Own previous failures, simply offered the incentive for "masses of inferiors" to "sit on the fence" to await the outcome for own causes.
Combined in mutually beneficial alliances, rather than "inferior mercenies" which came from "colonies", to create mutually protecting dominion-like independent/suzerein states in a re-organized soft-power empire was the option not taken. Unfortunately, the spineless and equally racist "hero lords" in London, unwilling to stand up to wrongs, did not understand even this most simplest of logic, and therefore lost their inheritance (Empire).
"The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonorably, foolishly, viciously." Julian Barnes
Everything you've been made to recite as a "chest thump/cool move"-moment in history, like Versailles or allowing the Anglo-Japanese Treaty to lapse without a replacement, simply just another nail in their own coffin of "Empire".
The gatekeepers in London (starting "around 1900"), a total failure.
Too much "strategic ambiguity" at a time "strategic consolidation" is required, leads to "empires" and corporations failing in the long run.
You don't become "the best", if you finger-point at someone "bad".
You don't become "high IQ", if you consider someone else "low IQ".
You don't become "smart", if you laugh at someone "stupid".
You don't become "more superior" if you look down at someone you've termed "inferior".
1
-
I just came here from a comments section from a video praising "hero Trump" for his ...ahem... "efforts to stop the war", with hundreds and hundreds of fools arguing about the effects, and their priorities, and fingers pointing here and there.... but maybe 1 or 2 mentioning the causes of this war which started 30 years ago.
Trump of course, during his first term (2017-2021), did not stop the "marching empire" [systemic expansion], so he was just another POTUS, an imperialist, just like all the others before...
-----------------------
Why is anybody surprised? The USA instigates wars or does not avoid them (even if possible), or lays the foundations for crises it aims to profit from using the divide-and-rule technique in IR. It is also a divide-and-rule Mecca for the ultra-rich who practice it on the domestic tier also.
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided people are easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy. Lies (incl. "lying by omission") is an integral part of the strategy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RicardoLopez-ub2hs And before that, white European settler colonists, following an ideology of own racial superiority, created mass-immigration into Palestine.
This mass-immigration where they were not welcome, was nothing new for whites all over the planet.
As for Palestine today: For 100 years, settler colonists (Irgun, Lehi, Palmach, etc.) cooperating with the hegemon, carried out such practices of harassment, trying to coerce the original inhabitants to flee so they could occupy the land.
A hundred years ago the British Empire dispatched psychos like Orde Wingate (Special Night Squads) who took pleasure in random shootings, or waterboarding opposition to the British Empire in oil, sending the tortured back to their villages to report about the actions of their oppressors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment.[1] The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking,[2] and accordingly, a critical thinker is one who practices the skills of critical thinking or has been schooled in its disciplines.[3] Richard W. Paul has suggested that the mind of a critical thinker engages both the intellectual abilities and personal traits necessary for critical thinking.[4] Critical thinking presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism[5][6] and sociocentrism." (Wiki)
"In that context (not a ref. to the above but a previous chapter in the book), how America "manages" Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 percent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about 60 percent of the world's GNP and about threefourths of the world's known energy resources. Eurasia is also the location of most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. After the United States, the next six largest economies and the next six biggest spenders on military weaponry are located in Eurasia. All but one of the world's overt nuclear powers and all but one of the covert ones are located in Eurasia. The world's two most populous aspirants to regional hegemony and global influence are Eurasian. All of the potential political and/or economic challengers to American primacy are Eurasian. Cumulatively, Eurasia's power vastly overshadows America's. Fortunately for America, Eurasia is too big to be politically one..." THE GRAND CHESSBOARD American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski
Critical question.
If that is the realisation, then what is the strategy to avoid that?
Ahem..."manages"...
Last time I checked, "thoughts and prayers" are neither a strategy, nor a management style.
What Brzezinski fails to elaborate on in his book, is that his "periphery" of states stretching from South East Asia, via the Indian subcontinent, through Africa and from there to South America, just like Great Britain and the U.S.A. was once the "periphery" of Europe...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are you a citizen of the world, and wish to contribute a small share to force Israel into a negotiated peace process?
Are you American, or European? Do you wish to bring the boys back home, from the multitude of military bases around the world, just like so many of your fellow citizens?
Just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve it by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve it by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve it by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve it by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve it by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands, buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not perfect, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions.
It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's allies and self-procalimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
blue222blue The PLO is a result of the Naqba, itself a result of the war of 1948, itself a result of the one-sided declaration of independence by one-third of the population...
Who asked them to?
So you see. It all starts with an immoral choice.
Nobody ASKED...LOL..."imgrunts and refgees" to declare their own independence over a two-thirds local majority.
So again.
No no mass immigration of ideologically indoctrinated whites into the Levant (aka Zionism), no civil war, no declaration of independence, no "neighbors attacking", no Naqba, no PLO, no terrorists, no rockets, no Hezbollah, no invasion of Lebanon, no....no...no.
You you see dude.
Yet again it starts with a bunch of German-speaking "blood and Lebensraum"- types showing up on the shores of another people....
1
-
blue222blue 2003 was a war for oil.
A causal result dating back to western meddling (regime change) in Iran in the 50s, resulting in an unpopular regime, resulting in the Ayatollahs, resulting in the support for Saddam as a regional proxy, resulting in a bloated dictator who thought his privileges included invading Kuweit, resulting in a Blitzkrieg in 1991...
At this point Saddam could not be removed, since he was still needed as "balancing powers" tool for our elites.
On the other hand, Iraqi oil was entrapped in the desert sand...not sellable. Obviously, every cent Saddam would have received would have gone towards buying arms...
So.
Of course.
To release all that oil to the market, Saddam "had to go". Another "regime change" was necessary.
Pity about the 6000 dead Americans, the trillions of dollars wasted, the scared souls and PTSD....
Should have been more :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yaaaasss ❤👍👍
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Africa and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100s of years. Right from the start of this conflict centuries ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS.
It's free.
Nobody will ask you to sign anything.
Once there is an inpact, there will be change: because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting...
Start unravelling the connections between the globalist elites, and big business, and Washington DC, by boycotting ALL big brands.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
The picture he painted, is faaaaaar bigger than that.
If you're not careful, the entire apparatus steered by the global elites will have you hating the people who are being ideologically encircled and divided, and loving the people who are doing the ideological encircling and dividing...
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a noun, and a defined term.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Like the ideology of democracy.
YES, believe it or not, what YOU believe in, is an ideology.
Similar to this concept are systems of beliefs, systems of ideas, and systems of ideals.
ALL of these, need "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
They need you, yes, YOU, to lie, and kill, so they can steal in the background, and YOU, yes, "you", are not better that anybody else on this planet if you lie, and kill for an ideology.
These dumbed down masses reveal themselves by the way the speak...
They are all tools, of others.
These power players preach from their "boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy".
Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of them, must be wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies...
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. Today, this has transformed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBERALS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. This branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@carissstewart3211 "Do unto others" or the Golden Rule, is near perfect, as long as one sticks to it to the letter.
Our Christian predecessors did not, obviously, and they obviously also fell for the fallacy of Tu Quoque, by pointing at others in the same time period, stating "well, they are also doing it, so why not us".
That is exactly what Christianity teaches us not to do.
It is in fact a guideline to lead by example, and these people simply ignored what didn't suite them (mainly, for reasons of greed).
Not excusable, at any point in history the past 2000 years.
I'm glad we agree on this.
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How our leaders avoid "avoiding war", and then make a racket...in three easy steps.
Step 1:
Ignore the warnings.
”I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.” George Kennan, re. NATO expansion, New York Times interview in 1998
Step 2:
Watch on as the situation deteriorates.
As "crisis" turns to "gloom", do little.
Step 3:
From wiki: "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
Butler confesses that during his decades of service in the United States Marine Corps: I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested." Smedley-Butler
Every generation is "same procedure as last time".
Today a new generation of racketeers are "standing down/standing by".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has only always gained greatly by setting up a world in which others fail.
The faster the rest of the world realizes this, the better.
Washington DC power mongers employ the divide and rule technique of power.
In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Europe was divided, with a ruling.
This strategy is often misunderstood, in narratives composed mostly of "being friends" or "being rivals/enemies", even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, so by 1945 the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." (end of)
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided" (the role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative. "Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...)
Whatever...
If your state or nation is "not at the table," you are "lunch" (Anthony Blinken).
The dividers telling everybody in no uncertain terms, that their interests and even their lives don't count.
There is no doubt that Washington DC is attempting to repeat this "success" (pov) in the rising powers of Asia.
The strategy can be observed to be implemented in the same way as was set up post-1900 in Europe, but in Europe the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer theory) were Great Britain and France.
Today, it is India being used in the same role as France was 100 years ago. In case of a wider war in Asia, as India is set up against China, qui bono if all lose?
The technique Washington DC employed up to the year 2000, is an almost exact repeat of the technique they used to overpower Europe around the year 1900: DIVIDE AND RULE.
Divide and rule creates all that follows in its wake:
1) The terrorist.
2) The state of terror.
3) The terror state.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Errr...sorry. No. This starts off with a lie.
Nobody is "exploiting the USA".
It is still the other way around, with around 4% of the global population, controlling around 30% of the world's wealth and resources.
That is simply down from previous levels of exploitation of the entire globe, as the world suffered after WW2.
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how the USA increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions with the creation of such policy "patterns" on the map.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the internationalists with the soft words, while the "bad cops" were the imperialists with the stick. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kvaughnpk Policies are long lasting.
Leaders come and go.
Google the Project for the New American Century.
Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, Trump...
All the same cabal...
Vote for any corporate Dem, or any GOP candidate, and you'll get "more of the same".
Join the dots between The Monroe Doctrine, and the New American Century.
Some people want to rule the world, and they're looking for toy soldiers to do their fighting for them, while the same old cabal reap the benefits.
You get the star spangled coffin, they get the villa by the sea.
Fair enough deal, I'd say...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl/Historian)
Today, the USA has practically admitted that it misuses smaller nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the current war in the Ukraine:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.” Taken from a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region. In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script". Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" or "using little nations" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
Some things never change...
"The policy which Britain has been pursuing for the last two centuries has brought her prosperity and greatness. After each victory, Britain seems, on the surface to have gained for herself no advantage whatever; all she did, she claimed to be an act of international chivalry and justice but a deeper analysis of British statesmen's claims reveals that they never speak the truth. Britain's key policy is to attack the strongest country with the help of weaker countries and then to join the weakened enemy in checking the growth of other countries and so on, and so on. British foreign policy has remained basically unchanged for two centuries. When Britain befriends or colonizes another country, the purpose is not to maintain a cordial friendship for the sake of friendship but to utilize that country as a tool to fight all threats to her supremacy. Therefore Britain always remains in a commanding position by making other countries fight her wars while she herself reaps the fruits of victory." Taken from The Vital Problem of China by Sun Yat-Sen, 1917
Should we eternally defend these long-dead historical "lords" who sacrificed pawns so their own crumbling "Empire" could survive a few more years?
Whilst these "fine gentlemen" in suites and bowler hats, scrambled to invent tax havens to safeguard the riches they had looted and raked in for a few hundred years, they used emotional arguments to cause outrage in times of crises, or sent the lower classes scrambling for the muddy trenches in times of war...
These tax havens they created spared their own obscene wealth, while the middle-classes and poor "masses" bore the burden of "Empire".
These fine elites sacrificed pawns following a "priority list": first to go were the "pawns" abroad, then followed by such in the own country, while skimming the cream off the top for themselves.
After WW1, they already knew "Empire" was on the way out, but preferred playing the game (strategies) with human lives just a little longer.
(Evidence: Search for The Spider's Web documentary on the Timeline Channel, here on YT).
Though it isn't possible to say when the American Century will go down in the same way as the British Empire once did, I will predict what will happen.
Maybe it will last another dozen years.
Maybe two-dozen.
Maybe even another fifty years...
Who knows?
Whatever.
The first "hedge fund manager"-types are already betting against the US dollar as the world reserve currency.
Such "hewoes" and "patwiots", lol
They will take their accrued "assets", and and the obscene wealth and profits raked in over the past American Century, to tax havens WHEN America's "century" implodes: leaving millions of middle-class and poor Americans to rub their eyes while wondering wtf happened...
History will repeat itself, unless the hegemon changes its deceitful ways (Google: "What does the Bible say about deceitful friends", to discover how history repeats itself in endless cycles).
The Founding Fathers once described London as “rich, proud, hectoring, swearing, squibbing, carnivorous” (Jefferson), therefore the perfect type of character flaws in a nation's leadership which one can "smear honey around the mouth", then infiltrate and then overpower: Which is what the USA did after 1895, "starting" with the first Venezuela Crisis.
Didn't anybody notice?
Washington DC sold out the "protection" they had offered to a "little nation" called Venezuela in the form of the Monroe Doctrine, as a sacrificial gift to London, and a "friendship" which could drive a wedge between arising European attempts at more unity.
Nope.
Nobody noticed.
Today, the new rich, proud, hectoring, swearing, squibbing, carnivorous "rulers of the world" in Washington DC are imitating exactly what they critized a quarter of a century before.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@barryfowles-zl5ib Yes, agreed.
I can't for the life of me figure it out.
"Capitalism" per definition, means that one chooses the cheapest and best option available to oneself.
Obviously, in the long run, and issues which concern overwhelming parts of a society (infrastructure, defense, health, etc.) any collective non-profit system beats any "for profit" model.
It is certainly steered by a false narrative over dozens of years, which has created a collective memory...
Evidence is there that it works, in most of the developed world.
Between 60-70% Americans are for it (same as most Americans are for gun control), but democracy simply doesn't work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course, everybody who reads their "book of moral principles", the Bible, knows that Jesus said you must ENCIRCLE and ENCROACH on they neighbor, in order to be the "eternal good guy" of history. LOL, no. Just kidding...
A few historical examples of this have already been mentioned below, and typical REactions to such surrounding and encroaching.
The REaction, is ALWAYS a crisis, accompanied by threats of war with the side trying to implement this "encirclememnt", acknowledging its deception, and backing down.
Other examples of escalation continuing to the point of war...
1) As Napoleon started expanding on the continent around 1800, the thread of the "Pistol pointing at the heart of England" (Antwerp as "encroaching" on England) was enough for GB to kickstart the Napoleonic war as pretext. The real reason was of course to "avoid the single hegemony" on the continent, using lttle nations, like German speakers, as allies. As long as Prussia was weak enough not to threaten the balance of power, it would be beguiled, befriended to take on the strongest continental power/alliance which was France (and Austria-Hungary). Paris used "divide and rule" to nibble apart the weak Central European power, the Holy Roman Empire, which found itself without a true purpose as the Ottoman mpire withdrew from Europe in statges. At the time, around 1800, France was (of course) simply making the continent "SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY", and was therefore ...the ...err..."bad guy"?.
2) War of 1812, with European powers trying to "encircle" the fledgeling USA, using Native American tribes as "buck catchers". In the big picture analysis of geopolitics/grand strategy, Washington DC had beguiled one of the waring European empires (Spain), then picked one of the other European empires (France) as "temporary best fwiend", and attacked the other (GB) preventively. All other reasoning, like "poor little sailors", was of course "ancillary".
3) The Boer Republics becoming surrounded and encroached upon by the British Empire, decided to strike first by declaring war. The Boers had no international "best friends", since their fringe location far in the interior of Africa with little infrastructure, made their plight uninteresting for other major powers. They could only hope that a war somewhere else, would draw off the British Empire's resources, to address more pressing matters elsewhere.
4) World War 1, which had its long-term causes in the intention to surround and encroach on (1st) Germany, by France and Russia (in stages, 1891-94), and then following that up with an equal attempt to "encircle" Austria-Hungary, by closer relations and a potential alliance between Russia and Serbia. Note: The suitably highlighted and (quote) "oh so important" event, the "Bosnia Crisis" (1908) came AFTER the 1903 coup d'etat in Belgrade, which put Serbia into the Russian/French "camp", and AFTER London's "entente" with Russia. The final annexation of Bosnia in 1908 was of course an EFFECT, not a "cause" (see concept of "retrocausality"). In reality, the status quo in the Balkans as around 1900, had suited Vienna just fine, but Vienna would not accept a "pistol pointing at the heart" of Austria-Hungary, by subversive Serbian attempts in Bosnia, using Serb nationalism as pretext. The side "pushing" after 1903 became the Entente Cordial, which intended to use Serbia as "buck catcher" (John Mearsheimer) for Russian intentions of gain in the Balkans, and this expansion had been tacidly "nodded off by London" (logic/reasoning: it deflected Russian expansive drive back to the Balkans, away from the Far East and Asia) during the talks re. the "entente" with Russia (1905/1906).
5) In August 1939 Poland became "encircled" by a temporary alliance of her neighbors (Germany/SU), with the intention to "carve her up" in a 4th partitioning, but decided to do nothing and not "strike first". Warsaw felt safe enough, and "protected" by empires. As long as she did not provoke an attack, France and Britain would engage Germany with a "2-front war" in case of aggression. *Unlike the USA in example nr.2) Poland had refused to "beguile" some neighbors, and make "friends" with one side of her neighbors, and paid the price.
6) Israel, encircled and feeling encroached by her Arab neighbors started several wars, either allying with empires (1956) or starting a preventive war by own choice (1967). Others were "preemptive wars" or "defensive wars" (Yom Kippur, 1973).
7) The "Special Military Operation" of February 2022, by Russia into the Ukraine. After 2007/08 the Ukraine was built up as the "buck catcher" for NATO expansion, pretty much the same way Japan was set up as "buck catcher" against Russia in the leadup to 1904 (longer essays below). The attempt by the west to "encroach" on Russia with NATO expansion, using the Ukraine as their "tool", was prevented with an invasion of "rest-Ukrainia" by Russia, since NATO does not expand into war zones" (Effect: NATO expansion is avoided by war, or as long as the Ukraine stays in one piece).
All of these wars offer sufficient overlap with regards to a systemic analysis, to become compatible.
Lesson to be learnt?
Do not do onto others as one does not wish to be done onto.
Do not surround or encroach on they neighbor.
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
China is the center of the new "Axis of Evil" (lol) because it uses its power to try to create international unity amongst the weaker states (aka global south), to stand up to the division poured upon the world`s less well-off by the rich collective West. These "rich" preach with one hand, and sow division with the other, to siphon off excessive gains to themselves. In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
The Global North, which has siphoned off more than 50% of the world's wealth and resources for centuries, are of course the "Axis of the Goody Two Shoes" (lol again).
And that 50% as "my cut" is what they did (one hand/one half of the "forked tongue"). Of course, that was also nothing new: it was simply the statement to keep up the systemic exploitation of weaker systems, to rule by division, wherever these weaker systems were, to uphold the power of the top tiers, hidden behind the nice-sounding stories of always just wanting to "help". Really? After 500 years of so-called "just helping out", there still isn't a just global balance of power? How long until the effects of "helping" come trickling down?
In case this essay raises any questions, please answer. If not, any critical questions are most likely already addressed, in one or more of the more than 100 essays in the below comments section. It does not only state "what happened" as so many of our history books inform us (effects), but more vital, how these "Global North Goody Two Shoes" actually implements eternal exploitation, per strategy (causes). The "critique" below has of course, also already been answered, and the critic simply "forgot" as he intends to gish-gallop into eternal dissension which is a strategy of distraction (and the affiliated deception/misdirection). Just scroll down, already answered.
----------------------------------------------------------
China's Century of Shame: 2024 Version.
If one understands what happened to China during their "Century of Humiliation," means that one then already has the template to understand what is happening today. One can use the historical "template" and apply it in the same manner. What happened to China during that era, is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today. Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the local little minions benefiting from the outside POWER of imperialism, who had been given gifts and promises, to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) crises into "eternal problems," sit by and do nothing as problems foment into violence, revolutions, and wars, or carry out other forms of privatized interference (corporatism) under government protection, or without. Whatever works, details really REALLY DON'T MATTER. Once "fomented troubles" rise out of hand, claim to "just want peace." Then use the little minions as favourites (favouritism = a technique within the "divide and rule" strategy of power) to destabilize an entire region, steer them against other weaker entities, and/or employ them as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regions as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc. In case of war, try to delay getting involved until an opportune moment, them sweep in a gain advantages, often obscure ones in strategy not immediately clear to the unconnected base of the pyramids...
See the footnote, for an independent analysis of the strategy, from another era, and different set of "interacting powers." Whatever works for the desired region to be divided/conquered or where CONTROL and domination is required for the favoured economic systems of gain will be implemented. There is no way that current day Chinese leaders will not have learnt their very own historical lesson, and allow their very own history to repeat/rhyme, and allow such outside meddling in the own systems to gain traction, AGAIN for a second time. Every nation or state has its own "Never again!" European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonic ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon. These citizens, usually around 50% of entire populations, suffer directly (the "heating or eating"-crowd last winter), or indirectly (soaring inflation), and therefore simply not having enough money to save to cover a sudden emergency. These are all "effects," not to be confused with "causes" (see concept of retro causality, one of the most easily misused ways to skew a timeline of events). Some eventually even end up in the muddy trenches.
If you live in the West, and don't know any of this history, or don't care what 1.4 BILLION Chinese think, or intend not to "get involved": it doesn't matter what YOU think.
See the essay in this comments section, about 7-8 years ago, as the "encirclement of China, as history rhyming" as the strategies are repeated. It was originally written about 10 years ago, as a short comment based on the observed reality at the time.
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans/Eurasians by using entire groups/nations/countries as proxies, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their (temporary) GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER.
With re. to how tools are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
No, this is not just some or other random anecdotal evidence, but an age-old strategy of power. Note also, that a "plan" and the strategy to effect the plan, are two different things. Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as the USA implemented "dissent by other means" (Clausewitz), to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combated by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today. MORE than sufficient evidence for this, in the below comments section. Outsiders intent on playing the game, use the revolutionary spirit, in order to hop onto useful dissent, strengthen it, and insert levers which they can pry open to gain own advantages. Beijing is certainly 100% aware of this, so everything you are witnessing today is a political EFFECT, not a political "cause" as some leaders wish to mislead us towards.
Everything you are being told about Berlin, in stages after 1894, 1904, 1907, and 1912, with gathering momentum, were EFFECTS, not CAUSES. That was, based on observation, outside powers with the intention to "divide and rule" Europe, by encroaching/encircling the major continental power, which has never changed throughout recent modern history. It started with the encirclement of Germany (by Russia/France) and continued with the encirclement of Austria-Hungary, nodded off politically/strategically by London in 1904, and 1907. The strategists in Washington DC would have been surely extremely pleased by these unfolding events (see the comment below this one). The ONLY factor which changed over the last few centuries, was the "major continental power" which had to be CONTROLLED by the outside power who wanted a competitive advantage. It continued after WW2, and the main thing that saved the planet from WW3, was the fact that nukes (MAD) meant that those used to push and push until something snapped, had to be more cautious this time.
The historical parallel, as the "Chinese Century of Shame"-historicity, and is well-known at least to the 1.4 billion inhabitants of China today. The template therefore predicts a similar outcome, that of the more encroachment/encirclement, the more likeliness of the "breakout attempt" in some possible future.
Obvious solution for a more stable world, stop the encroachment/encirclement, and stop the use of people caught within lines drawn on the map, as instruments of power.
Both historically (post-1900) as well as our recent history (post-2000) there seems little incentive for those with the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to do so, but rather the repeated attempts to search for tools to do such encroachment/encirclement FOR the outside power/s intent on gain.
(Footnote: For more information on this technique of top-down power aka divide-and-rule/conquer, go to the Sowell vid on YT about how Rome conquered Britain. History rhymes, because the strategists repeat the strategies of power, which are limited in number. That might have been a looooong time ago, but the strategies are still being applied proactively today, meaning that YOU (the reader), your family and friends, are being set up again. Voltaire — "History never repeats itself. Man always does.")
Personal advice: Try to "get it." Ignore the dissenters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Maybe because the USA stands for freedom....for 'muricans....
For millions of others, it was more about stealing, politically disenfranchising native populations, arm-wrestling with the meek, wars on minor nations, invading, political meddling, economic exploitation, extortion of poorer regions, favoritism, divide and rule, CIA covert operations, regime change...
Did I mention stealing?
1
-
1
-
@SpaghettiandSauce As for Iran, Google how the CIA intervened to dispose of the legally elected leader of Iran in 1953, Mossadegh, a very popular and moderate leader.
It went downhill from there.
Don't whine about a state of affairs today which the USA helped create (together with GB) for OWN interests.
Iran today is blowback from past western meddling in their world.
Same with Korea.
Whoever asked the people of Korea if they wished to be carved up as WW2 war loot? Half for the murdering commie crooks, half for the west. Google "how Roosevelt and Stalin divided Korea at Yalta Conference".
See what happens when you treat human beings like war loot?
What does your Bible say about "do onto others" or "put yourself in their shoes"?
America is "reaping" what your leaders have "sown" in the past.
No carving up at Yalta, no Korean War with millions of dead (including thousands of 'muricans....too bad...)
Same with Venezuela, which failed due to populism not socialism.
Chavez started populist measures and financed these through oil sales. When the price of oil dipped, he could no longer keep his promises (note: populism = "handouts and freebies" in return for political support, paid for by state revenue which is the same as the Trump admin is currently doing i.e. state income from tariffs to struggling farmers, his supporters).
Yup. That never ends well :-)
Anyway, when the price of oil rose, and Venezuela could have theoretically fixed their problems, they were hit by US sanctions, which make a recovery impossible now.
Again, a home-grown problem.
But no worries.
I heard Russia and China are more than willing to help out, which sounds a bit like an own goal...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Advice for the inhabitants of Greenland.
Please look back in history, in order to see your future when Trumpypants comes.
Please, please bow down when your "new friends" come, just like Hawaiians did 150 years ago (post-1850s). Then, you'll be good people, on the right side of history. Bow down deep, and don't be naughty, like the islanders of Puerto Rico, and offer resistance. Remember, when the money elites come from major US cities, to buy up and OWN everything around you, try not to be obstinate. Just give up all your prime ancestral lands to these outsiders and multi-national corporations, and don't resist.
Dear Greenlanders, for in these two "histories" (Hawaii, Puerto Rico) you can see your future, when your "friends" arrive on your shores with their shareholder "meets & greets" and the political "grips & grabs" for the cameras, for the adoring crowds back home. Forget about an affordable health insurance, 'cos think about the bright side: you'll have McDonalds on every corner, and Red Dye 40 poisoning your kids. Laws? Hahahaaa... Who needs dumb laws, if you got "freedumb baby"...
So you think you have a European strong big brother protecting you? Think again, because so did Hawaiians (British Empire), before all the "friends" came with their super dealmakers...
Oh, and dear Greenlanders, don't be naughty and think "capitalism" is actually important. See Panama, as exemplary. A hundred years ago, they dared to think they could sell themselves for a good price determined by themselves, while they were still called "Colombians". Now, they are not "Colombians" anymore. And nobody cares, because they don't know, haven't been informed by their colluding top tiers, and therefore do not know what they lost.
God forbid, do not follow the path of all those terrible people of Cuba, who dared to choose the "wrong" friends, when all your "right" friends did was to rob you blind during their Era of Robber Barons, taking it all for themselves and their local collaborators. You, the little guy, MUST be grateful for every crumb that falls off the richly-lain table. Should you resist, their wrath is eternal, and impossible to turn...
You don't understand what any of this means?
In that case, your future is already pre-programmed, and once your new friends (Washington DC) are in power, and if you resist them, their minors (dancers for gifts/Salome) will "demand your head on a silver platter" (allegory) to protect their power.
It's about POWER.
The future of Greenland is the past of Hawaii.
They covet thy, and will get it.
Afterwards, their hordes will look at all the broken eggs, and the "omelette" and ask: "But, but, what did you lose? Oh dear friend...your one of us..."
Regarding the allegory, and regardless of all the variations or depictions: old power (ideology) does not like the rise of new power (ideology), if you are the original owners of the land.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raywest3834 No, in view of how London had "set up" continental Europe to protect their Empire, it was unwise to "diss France", with 2 (note two, not one) hostile systems eyeing territory.
First and foremost, despite what our history books say, was "communism", exemplified by "Moscow/Stalinism/Stalin".
There were other, and better options, even at the time.
Fatal mistake in June 1940?
Not leaving it to capable commanders "on the spot", or the entire "leading from the front"-narrative.
1
-
@raywest3834 To add to the above, or to expanding a bit on the concept of "leading from the front".
Back in the days of sail, British Admirals had wide-ranging powers, even of a political nature for obvious reasons.
It was also the most successful days of Empire.
Strange how historians would conclude that it was "generals sitting in Chateaus far away from the action" which lost many battles in WW1 and early-WW2, rather than allowing front-line commanders and officers to lead from the front, given "objectives", not specific orders.
True.
The specific orders by the Admirality, coupled with Churchill's "settle matters quickly" had 2 main effects:
1) it took the decision out of the hands of Admiral Somerville
2) put emense pressure, by dictated orders (rather than "objectives")
Even Churchill must have instinctively grasped that it was a mistake, and he prepared 2 speeches for Parliament.
One conciliatory, the other more defiant...
Conclusion: It was a mistake at the time, not only in hindsight.
1
-
@raywest3834 How was France dissed?
It is mentioned in almost every doc about Mers.
Remember?
The pledge to rather scuttle the own ships, rather than hand them over, was simply ignored.
That decision would also come back to haunt the Allies later.
A worthy and mutually agreed upon agreement would have aided the war effort in multiple ways.
Remember the decision of French soldiers, who would rather repatriate to France rather than fight on? Remember the bravery of the few French soldier who protected Bir Hachim in the Western Desert campaign? Imagine there were 100,000 French soldiers in the Western Desert, rather than a few thousand...
The Indian and ANZAC soldiers fighting here could have been stationed in Singapore, fighting off the Japanese.
And the French ships sunk in Toulon in 1942, as promised?
They could have hunted submarines, provided shore bombardment for Allied landings, served as AA defense for convoys, etc., etc.
Like I said before.
It was not only wrong in hindsight.
Not trusting own capable commanders "on the spot", to make accurate judgements when given an objective (say, for example: "ensure that the French fleet doesn't join the Axis"), rather given a specific order is an attitude problem, which comes back to those adhering to such fallacious command structures.
Usually, politicians, overriding the better judgment of capable military commanders present on site.
Our history books are full of such cases, and Mers is simply another such case of "politics meddling in a military issue".
What is your standpoint re. "The generals sitting in faraway chateauxs", directing actions hundreds of miles away, of which they don't even have exact realtime information?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It "started" quite innocently, way before WW2.
With a London policy.
I'm sure the British population and the inhabitants of Empire would have been happy if their toffs hadn't made Germany the enemy as a default setting.
The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting...
[britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power]
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.
It came first before all other considerations.
It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding
1) alliances
2) treaties (or no treaties)
3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord)
4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle)
5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint)
6) when to engage in arms races
7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences
Go over your history, and see its handwriting all around...
Enjoy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The point...
It's what happens if you make the wrong friends.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
1
-
@rosesandsongs21 The London lords did as they always did: just following orders.
The lords thought they were sooooo clever and make a "pig's breakfast" out of their European neighbors, as they always did as a matter of policy.
"Sir Humphrey Appleby : Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
James Hacker : That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker : Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Really, Minister [rolls eyes and laughs]"
From The Complete Yes Minister.
No "satire" there at all.
Not "funny comedy" at all if one ends up as a "tool" of London's little divide and rule schemes.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists...
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States).
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule. Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating families. Divide and rule. Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Ask the affected millions what they wanted for themselves? Nah. That was below the lords...
So in 1939 Stalin and Hitler came along and made "a pig's breakfast" of the London lord's little scheme for their "divided continent" (see Secret protocol to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact).
The lords wanted to play divide and rule with the continent's inhabitants indefinitely, for own gain, and in the end the UK became a tool of Washington DC, and they lost their Empire. Sad.
The good ol' times of "fun and games" came to an abrupt end in 1945 and a subsequent few years.
Washington DC tore up the Quebec Memorandum: the promise to share nuclear technology was reduced to the status of "a scrap of paper". Awww. Sad. No nukes for the "special relationship" best fwiends 😅😆😁
Subsequently Washington DC used British weakness and made a pig's breakfast out of British markets (economic warfare), and re-divided the world into "east and west".
Didn't anybody notice?
The world went from a divided continent, to suit the expansion/protection of the British Empire/London, to a divided world ("East" vs "West"), to suit the expansion/protection of The American Century/Washington DC.
And down went the British Empire.
Dustpile of history...
1
-
1
-
Everybody in America has the same rights to pursue "life, liberty and happiness".
It counts for Christians, Jews, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Native Americans, atheists, Scientologists, immigrants, LGBTQ community, hippies, farmers....rich, poor, you name it....
You have the right to practice any religion, and pray to your god whichever way you like (within the laws of the land), but the moment you try to restrict others in their pursuit of life according to their wishes, as Me Chow did, then expect to be called out for it...
Leave others alone, and you will be left alone.
PragerU is using that "confusing cause and effect"- trick, by leaving out who started it...
Chow started it, by campaigning to rescind Title IX protection for fellow students, and linking that decision to her personal convictions.
[Note, the fact that she abstained is beside the point. The fact that that she judged her fellow students in a 5-paragraph statement in which she called only her own lifestyle as being "good and true" is not even mentioned by PragerU]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Where have I ever denied Nazi attrocities?
My point is that London did not implement Area Bombing because of Nazi attrocities.
They implemented terror bombing against civilians in Germany for the same reason they implemented terror bombing against Iraq in the 1920's (aka Air Policing) and for the same reason they stuck women, old men and kids into concentration camps during the Boer War.
London: If the going gets tough, the tough get going...to fight the women and kids.
😀😁😂
Nothing to admire there either.
During WW1 and WW2 British civilans simply "reaped" as they had sown for years and years.
(Note: British historian "logic", not mine).
My logic?
Again, for like the 50th time.
My sympathy goes to ALL victims, irrelevant of race, religion, language, ethnicity, etc.who through no fault of their own become embroiled in situations they had no influence on.
No, I don't believe in collective punishment.
"Guilt" or "innocence" are individual criteria.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "divide and rule"-world leads to a lot of confused souls.
So a giant hissy fit ensued because a Nazi entered the parliament of a western democracy, and was applauded...
What's all the outrage about?
It simply fits a predictable pattern, based on the history of Europe ever since the Middle Ages, called "divide and rule". These "smartest people" (elites) applauded an old Ukrainian friend, of the "mutual enemy" the Russians...
They were simply sleeping with the devil.
What's wrong with that?
These eternally clapping parliamentarians did NotSee the long history of these Ukrainian "freedom fighters"?
The post-WW2 western support for such "freedom fighters", made them heroes according to the logic of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (part of the "divide and rule"-strategy), meaning that all these remaining Nazis were suddenly "best friends" after Churchill "declared" the Iron Curtain in 1946, and the USA followed suit (Truman Doctrine in 1947).
A predictable pattern: Round up the stragglers of the "old enemies", then do your best to close both eyes to NotSee their past, turn them into "friends" and make the old "friends" the "new enemy", and the games continue...
What could possibly be wrong with "sleeping with the devil", as declared by Churchill to be an honorable goal?
Per decree, the old "devils/NotSees" (WW2) became the new friends.
Simply the effects of own policies and doctrines.
This is simply the games empires play, so what's with all the outrage?
But suddenly, the own stew that was cooked, doesn't taste so great anymore...
In reality, our brains are simply being re-wired to accept NotSees as "new best friends" to extend Russia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the study of conflict resulting out of the migration of large cultural groups, usually as part of agendas or expansion.
What is presently happening, as a part of a wider conflict going back at least 100 years, is the immigration of a superior culture of lighter skin-colored cultural ingroup, injected onto a darker skin-colored cultural outgroup.
The favored ingroup coming from outside (people born elsewhere) received land, livestock, and a home of sorts, all based on the advantage of having "friends in the right places", and having more resources at hand for the own aims and goals. In return, they become what the USA did during their own expansion into North America, the "farms/forts", which if "shot at" would always be "just defended", or "shooting back" (see below essays for more examples of this strategy or "101 playbook of imperialism" for expansion of the own systems).
The "settler colonist" (system) is the TOOL of expansion.
While the existing population was squeezed out of strategically vital areas one step at a time (arable farmland, for example, or sources of water), the faraway controlling political movement sought widespread support from whoever would give it, specifically from very imperialistic indoctrinated "friendly systems", for the own expansive goals. Real or at least tacid support for the "own -ism" is bought from large organisation, like the UN for example.
People who came with the well-wishing of large portions of the "ingroup"-supporters ("-isms"), or at least indifferent/ignorant of the real issues and therefore largely complacent, created a culture of "settler colonialism", creating a "storyline" that if such a settler colonist is attacked in any way, that they will be "just defending themselves". The original imperialist expansion (industrial/financial/argricultural/mining/raw materials/ideological, etc.), of "settler colonialism" being the cause of conflict, is simply never questioned at all...
Of course, one does not need a cristal ball, or be a Nostradumbass in order to predict that conflict was bound to take place, in view of previously unfolding similar series of historical events, in other places in the world, where people with an "-ism", emboldened by a feeling of cultural superiority, following a prescibed set of steps as strategy, in order to gain a superior political/economic position for the own "tribe" (tribalism).
When one studies the various perspectives about human conflict, one can't help wondering who is most to blame.
Is it:
1) the various enablers and deciders as executive powers? (leaderships)
2) those who saw financial opportunities to exploit, specifically in case troubles/strife ensued? (opportunists)
3) those who wished to proliferate themselves, advance personal carriers, or similar free-riders, but otherwise had no real POWER as executives? (political expediency of choosing sides)
4) the huddled masses without land, who decided to take the lifeline thrown at them, despite knowing that they were imposing on another already existing indigenous population? (chosen ingroup)
5) the indigenous population, mostly equaly "huddled masses" just trying to eke out a living, but who were never asked what they wanted for themselves as collective? (chosen outgroup)
6) any other, or a different order, since this is an open question
It should not be too difficult to conclude that responsibility for the resulting conflict goes pretty much in the order of 1 to 5, with those mostly responsible being the few "deciders" (as 1). These should not only have been in the position to foresee trouble ahead, but also to acknowledge these foreseeable events, and then search alternatives.
Only...
...the unfolding series of events did not take place in the Middle East, and did not involve London, the British Empire, France, or any other western power.
The conflict mentioned in the first paragraphs, has been taking place with gathering momentum over the past 100 years, is taking place in Irian Jaya (Indonesia) of course.
I hope nobody concluded is was about some other place somewhere else in the world...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_conflict
The "strategic encroachment" as part of such "outgroup"-agendas must be searched for...
"During the late 20th century Indonesia resettled 300,000 farmers to the restive province of West Papua, transforming its demographic composition. Such resettlement, or ‘transmigration’, was quite limited until the mid-1980s and restricted to only certain areas of West Papua. What accounts for the incidence of transmigration? Using a panel of all transmigration, ethnic cleansing and demographic change data in each regency of West Papua during 1964-2000 compiled from confidential government sources, I show that, after an aborted Papuan uprising in 1984, Indonesia cleansed and settled its border with Papua New Guinea to forestall cross-border insurgent activity. I then show that after the Grasberg gold mine was opened in 1990 Indonesia cleansed and settled the area around the mine." from the introduction of "Indonesian Settler Colonialism in West Papua", 10 Jun 2020, Lachlan McNamee, University of California, Los Angeles
According to the "NIMBY"-principle, most people actually do not care much about unfolding events far away, so are most likely completely unaware that there even is a simmering conflict somewhere else. According to "NIMBY" however, should the shoe be on the other foot, and the own existence becomes "encroached upon" by an outside migrating group (immigrants/refugees), all of similar background, it doesn't take long for the observed "unease" to begin. Firstly, in the form of lots of moaning and groaning, then if no political action changing the course of events results, the "steps" gradually increase in the level of violence exerted. Firstly there would be randomly organized protests, then larger forms of civil unrest, more property damage, more arson, the first deaths, and so on, and so on, until there is a large scale revolution. Any wise political leadership will always head off such series of unfolding events, but there must be a recognition that action is called for. If not, the series of events always follow predictable patterns, regardless of the tier of events, the cultural background of those involved, the gods these people pray to, the ideology, or the language spoken.
1
-
The "divide and rule"-strategy or technique has a pretty long history in the Levant, which had been a desirable crossroads of civilizations ever since ancient times (land route connecting continents/systems) with changing POWERS implementing the strategy as time passed. If one wishes to understand history, one first has to familiarize oneself with strategies of power. If not, one WILL get misguided, distracted, and fooled into cheering for "imperialism", even whilst thinking one is cheering for "freedom and democracy", or something else...
The fact that one does not like an observed event (like = an emotion), does not mean the observed event does/did not take place.
Note that in order to play the game of "divide and rule", it needs a geographical/physical advantage, and POWER.
No POWER, no games...
In a more worldly sense.
As far as systems and strategies are concerned.
The 15 million people initially injected as "anchor state" (strategy) into the Levant, by an empire after WW1, are not going to rule/dominate the Levant.
Such a small number is always a "tail", and not the "dog".
The tail (lesser power) does NOT wag the dog (greater power).
That is just an easily chanted slogan, created by the dividers, in search of scapegoats for the slogan chanters/banner wavers.
It is a myth and a tool of deception and misdirection, by those who truly wish to rule by division. The ruling class. The elites, or the "1%-ters", the "$uperhubs", or whatever one wishes to call such a headless mass, united by their interests (§§§footnote).
In the real world, it is the "dogs" of POWER, who "wag the tails".
Modern Israel is a tool, once created by an Empire for a specific purpose, just like every other ME country was created for a purpose.
The sooner ALL these divided semites in the Levant realize this, the better it will be for ALL semites. They are ALL tools.
As a guideline, the first tentative examples of African leaders finally realizing the POWER of the "divide and rule"-technique is out there. This technique, same as 100 and 200 and 2,000 years ago uses a multitude of "carrots and sticks": the outside POWER mis/uses differences in race, religion, ethnicity, and uses the appeals to the leaders here in the form of "greed", personal advantages, or promises, or using the "shame game", etc. Whatever works in the desired area in which "disunity" is the goal. The example of African leaders standing united, and repulsing such outside attempts, can be studied. The initial positive observation, is not final though: the "dividers" will return. They will come back, and push, and push, and push until the first weakness appears, which will then be exploited...
"Divide and rule" is in politics and international relations, what nukes are in warfare.
AGE OF EUROPEAN IMPERIALISM
Israel, the artificial entity, had never been created by a god, never mind what the idealogues proclaim. In antiquity it was created by strategists, employing amongst other strategies, the "divide and rule"-technique to inch forward towards the "milk and honey"-land belonging to others already living there, while being the favorites of a god in an ideology. Thousands of years later during WW1 it was recreated by a very worldly empire, Great Britain, employing the "divide and rule"-technique. The goals and aims of this empire, acting in conjunction with France, tacidly nodded of by Washington DC, were very earthly: to rule, and keep the POWER it had amassed as a result of a previous lucky GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE vis-a-vis its European neighbors. For the British Empire starting around 1917: to use mass-immigration as a tool of division as they did all over their empire. Lines were drawn, and rulers imposed onto the people living here, who were never asked as a colloective. Whether it was the White Highlands (Kenya) or Palestine, these white immigrants brandished their newly found power (as the favorites of an empire). In other cases (Fiji, for example) mass-immigration of other subjects were used to cause disruption within the original indigenous power structures. This power of the hegemony was transformed into pieces of paper (deeds) granting CHOSEN FAVORITES property in a promised land, and these new favorites/best friends in the form of mass-immigration would then, in return, protect the British Empire's interests. In the Levant, it was the very precious Suez Canal from the threat of potential attacks by land armies, from the north...because the British Empire did as it always did. Create useful tools in a "barrier state" (strategy), for its own perceived potential future gain.
That of the automatic ally (strategy).
If the Levant was attacked by a northern empire on the way to Egypt/Suez as per Heartland Theory (1904), via land routes where the mighty Royal Navy was useless, the "poor little friends" which had previously been strategically set up as homelands/states, would be defended. Of course, because the Empire cared so much about "poor people"...
The motivations for empires in the beginnings at this watershed of history for the Levant (1917) can be linked to the motivations for empires today.
THE DAWN OF MODERN CIVILIZATIONS
In the Bible, the original divider of mankind in the Levant, was the figure God (Old Testament).
Whether one believes in this god or not, doesn't matter. In a systemic analysis, Jesus the philosopher (New Testament) actually OPPOSED his (so-called) father's form of authoritarian and often brutal rule (Old Testament). In antiquity, the figure God had used the "divide and rule"-strategy on and over the rest of mankind in the Levant. From the position of ultimate POWER, God had chosen favorites, and throughout the Old Testament (as a historical series of events) continued to make rulings and grant miracles in the favor of his chosen. Yikes, God even nuked Sodom and Gomorrha in order to make living space for his chosen (lol, just kidding). On a sideline, also the invention of propaganda: These inhabitants were the collective "evil outgroup", who also collectively "deserved to die".
Whatever...
Further indicators: God favored "ruler types" (Old Testament/top down rule) like Moses. No doubt, in a realist analysis, strategists like Moses were most likely the inventor of the SINGLE HEGEMONY as a SOLE God with the all seeing eye, to create unity. To avoid people from creating a miriad of depictions and minor gods, and get constantly distracted by a plethora of personal favorite foreign gods in the lands they were dispered into, and who would end up dancing around idols...
Poor Moses must have been frustrated by his followers' insatiable appetite for entertainment, divisive squabbles, tribal infighting, family fueds, and other distractions from the endsieg: the land of milk and honey they all dreamed of as settler colonists on the move.
THE ROMAN EMPIRE
According to the legacy, Jesus approached commoners (New Testament/bottom up unity).
The polar opposite of God of the Old Testament (see above).
Around the year "0", The Roman Empire had the POWER in the Med, and it had amassed this power as a result of a previous lucky GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE vis-a-vis its neighbors in the Mediterranean. A technological and organisational edge gave it that slight advantage of reach: While it could "reach" all neighbors in the Med, these neighbors could not "reach" Rome, at least for the time being. That would change later as the balance of power shifted.
Around the year 0, one can see Jesus as the "prototype Hippy" teaching love and charity, in other words the Monty Python take on the observed events, or one can see him as a talented strategist who intended to take on the might of the Roman Empire. Actual evidence then favors a combination of both (the "peaceful revolution" against the Roman Empire): crimes against the state, like sedition, were usually punished by crucifiction. The irony of the Roman Empire killing Jesus, is that they later took the resulting religion as a state religion, in efforts to bring unity to the crumbling empire, by replacing a miriad of gods and resorting to the "one god" as single hegemony over all (state religion). The intention to use an ideology to create unity was too little, too late to save a crumbling empire...
Whether such events mentioned on clay tablets, or scrolls, were actual events, or inventions by philosophers to explain strategies, or simply true at some core and then added onto as the ages passed, to become the well-honed stories we read today, is not even important in any systemic analysis. As I always say, historians and politicians can hardly agree on what happened last week, let alone 2,000 years ago, or 4,000 years ago. Therefore, best to reduce everything to the tier of "systems/strategies" in order to discover what really happened.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Forget all the distractions created by the "-isms".
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
@solologanuk Yes, there is only "history".
As long as the facts are correct, then what is left is "perspectives".
One perspective should not rank higher than another.
Telling history from the perspective of millions of victims, has often been degraded as "Marxist" and therefore "less valuable".
The reality?
As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What you are explaining is how divide and rule is implemented.
It's a so-called "long game."
Because after the SU collapsed, the strategists in Washington DC and the collective West could not "turn" Russia into a tool to surround China after China's gradual rise after the 1970s/1980's, as they "turned" countries like Japan, the Philippenes, South Korea, etc. (morphed into staging areas for their military).
West Germany and Japan were needed to encircle the SU in the east and west, as "unsinkable aircraft carriers" (staging areas in strategy), so they were allocated the markets to outgrow the UK, which was reality by the 1960s.
GB and France were stifled, and their empires employed as tools to fight the enemy created with the Truman Doctrine (1947). The Old World's power "invested in" and European power was "extended," fighting communism, the same language used in modern strategy papers.
Today, the Ukraine is used as an "investment" and a tool to "extend" Russia (actual language used in US strategy papers).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The point...
It's what happens if you make the wrong friends.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Germany not "allowed to build ships" point of view of many historians is flawed.
People, any people, independent of where they live, are affected by the events of the recent and relevant past (note, not the future, which they don't know about of course).
So why did the German taxpayer support the construction of a large German Navy?
Easy answer: past events.
Kagoshima, Sebastopol (Krim War), Savannah, the Opium Wars, and hundreds of other "targets" ravaged by naval bombardment and wars as a result of squabbling over spheres of influence.
That is what influenced public opinion at the time (1880s and 1890s), and why a nation of taxpayers would gladly use their newly created wealth, to support the construction of a navy.
The object was not becoming the victim of another nation's arrogance of power.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Canton_(May_1841)
As it was, during WW1, the Imperial German Navy might not have broken the illegal (not sanctioned by international law) long distance blockade of the RN, but they did avoid the RN from steaming into the Baltic, "Copenhagenizing" one German city after the next...
https://www.google.com/search?client=tablet-android-asus-rev&biw=602&bih=964&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=copenhagen+navy+bombardement&oq=copenhagen+navy+bombardement&aqs=mobile-gws-lite...
In fact, criticizing the construction of the Imperial German Navy from the comfortable position of hindsight today, makes as little sense as criticizing the construction of Chain Home or the ordering of large numbers of Hurricanes and Spitfires in the late 1930s...
For both , there was a justified "cause".
If one doesn't like the effect, then don't supply the cause.
1
-
To add to the above, which is "the big picture":
The often stated "naval arms race" being a cause for WW1 is a misconception.
Historians pin their flag on the date like 1904 or 1906 for example, saying that here is where that "history" started.
Actually, the naval arms race started in 1871, with an unsuccessful attempted blockade of northern German ports during the Franco-Prussian War by the French navy.
The "cause" was therefore the intention of German leaders to protect German citizens from the threat of blockade. Blockading an enemy, was one of the favorite means of economic warfare at the time. It therefore "started" with a German-French naval arms race, and expanded to a German - French/Russian arms race after France and Russia formed an alliance (Entente Cordial).
When GB joined the Tripple Entente, this "naval arms race" was already in full swing. Obviously, German leaders then had to protect German ports from a potential blockade of THREE navies. British, Russian, and French.
In other words, the German naval re-armament was an "effect" of previous actions (causality). Not a "cause" but an "effect" of previous events. The German leaders reacted to a potential threat (blockade).
A confusion of "cause and effect", by simply pinning a "starting date" randomly on a timeline. "History" is being "sold" to us the wrong way, and it is easy to confuse people.
Also, study the design parameters of the German ships built up to WW1. Note that they were close range, coast defence vessels without any global reach (naval bases, or international logistics in the form of alliances).
The threat to the RN and the British Empire was the typical fear mongering by arms manufacturers, vying for funds for their particular industry.
Cause and effect.
No cause, no effect.
The root cause of German Naval armament was the alliance system, and the widespread use of navies as tools of blockade and for coastal bombardment (Google "Copenhagenizing", a fear as present in the minds of the people who lived at the time, as mass-bombardment was in the 1930s, and as the fear of nukes in the Cold War).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Copenhagen_(1807)
As a general rule, would you say that if a threat to a population develops (any population), that leaders are not allowed to respond to it?
1
-
The Cuban Missle Crisis and WW1.
Of course the average history fan will ask themself the question "What does the Cuban Missle Crisis have to do with WW1?".
The answer to that rhetoric: Everything, because even when "only studying history", we are also (indirectly) studying human nature.
And human nature, unlike human behaviour, is a constant. It does not change.
Human behaviour of course changes (rules, laws, society, etc.).
Whether ancient history or modern times: human nature remains the constant factor.
The key lessons when comparing the two, is how a willingness to compromise averted the end of humanity in 1962 (or MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction).
The average history fan's take on the Cuban Missle Crisis is somewhat along the lines of "Nasty Russia wanted to rule the world :-) and threatened the good guys USA but the good guys stayed strong and won in the end because we were better people and ya'll know the good guys always win", or something simplistic like that...LOL
Far from it.
To those who dig a little deeper and discover all the facts, and are particularly not confused by history books/docs pinning a flag on a timeline, a completely different picture arises.
It was actually the "good guys" who "started it", by placing own nuclear missles in Turkey, on the Russian doorstep, thereby creating a security issue for the UdSSR which did not exist in return for "the good guys", who initiated/triggered//started the crisis. The Russians responded, by using the age-old principle of "What does it feel like?" (or the Biblical "put yourself in their shoes"), and thereby started placing their own missles in Cuba, on the US doorstep.
Irrelevant of personal "feelings" (sympathies, opinions, patriotism, "my country, right or wrong", slogan chanting, whatever): reality was created by "causality", not the opinions or feelings of individuals.
The above has a parallel re. the geopolitical encirclement/military danger of a two-front war of Germany/Austria-Hungary. First by Russia and France of Germany, then followed by Russia-France-GB in re. to mostly Germany. Then followed by Russia-Serbia attempting to do the same with Austria-Hungary aka "two front war" danger for Austria-Hungary. Of course the 3rd Balkan War which Vienna started in July 1914 was in response to a Serbian provocation in June 1914, and was a preventive war (see definition). It was started by Austria-Hungary, to avoid/prevent a potentially possible alliance between Russia and Serbia.
At some point one oversteps a line re. the security issues of another state/alliance, and one must first acknowledge it, then work towards a compromise.
So what did the "new alpha" after WW2 (Washington DC), do differently during the Cuban Missle Crisis (1962), than the powers did in the leadup to WW1?
And in particular the "leader of the world" which was unmistakably still London/Empire (early-20th century).
1) Washington DC obviously first acknowledged that Russia stood "in different shoes" (biblical logic), and had a security issue created by US actions
2) after the first step of acknowledgement, a compromise was made
So here is what the noisy "victory"-chanters forget to mention: The USA withdrew their missles from Turkey, and in return Russia withdrew theirs from Cuba.
*Both countries' security issues were (within the limits set by the status quo at time aka "Cold War") acknowledged, and then a compromise was made.
Obviously there were differences. There was obviously a difference between a short-term crisis (2 weeks in 1962) and long-term geopolitical changes (say, the 30 years leading up to WW1). Also technology, geography, political systems, etc. between the two events, so there is no need to point these out.
The factor of human nature was the constant factor.
Also of course the knowledge on the part of both superpowers that screwing it up in 1962 could never lead to a "win" for anybody, because MAD would have been kinda final for all...
The "lesson to be learnt" from WW1 was obviously at least partly learnt by the new alpha after WW2.
"Put yourself in their shoes", and compromise.
Obviously there is no need to make false compromises (google "argumentum ad temporantium" or a false/shifted "middle ground").
For example in re. to the leadup to WW2. In the leadup to WW2 and a shoutout to all the "Hitler fanboys": Germany didn't have these geopolitical encirclement/military 2-front war security issues, because the caring good guys (LOL) took care of this "German angst" at Versailles.
"Apples and oranges"-comparisons are invalid).
The leadup to WW1 was a clear-cut case of ignoring the security issues faced by the Dual-Alliance. The Triple Entente powers were willing to push and push until something snapped. Unlike the "new alpha" after WW2, there was an unwillingness by the members of the Tripple Entente to deal with justifiable objections.
In that regard, lets see what happens with Chy-naaah and Russia today, in a similar big picture reality.
1
-
1
-
"Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Das ist eine Strategie: bestehende Unterschiede absichtlich ausnutzen um Aufruhr zu erzeugen.
Die Mächtigen haben die Strategie des Teilen und Herrschen seit Tausenden von Jahren genutzt, um einen Keil zwischen die Völker zu treiben.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe bemerkte schon damals: „Teile und Herrsche, ruft der Politiker; vereinige dich und führe, ist das Schlagwort der Weisen.“
Manche Politiker und Machthaber tun dies vielleicht unschuldig und ohne nachzudenken, aber die meisten wissen genau was sie mit ihren spaltenden Zungen tun. Es ist ihre erfolgreichste Technik, die es ihnen ermöglicht über uns zu herrschen indem sie eine größere Einheit unter den Menschen verhindern. Das ermöglicht ihnen enorme Reichtümer vom Bruttosozialprodukt, das eigentlich alle Menschen zusteht, abzuschöpfen.
Wir sollten ihnen nicht erlauben, in den nächsten tausend Jahren genau so weiter zu gewinnen.
„Teile und herrsche“ (oder „teile und kontroliere“) ist eine politische oder strategische Strategie, die verwendet wird, um die Kontrolle über eine Region des Planeten zu erlangen oder zu behalten, indem Spaltung verursacht und interne Konflikte geschürt werden. Die Idee besteht darin, Gegner oder rivalisierende Fraktionen zu schwächen und zu verhindern, dass sie sich gegen die SPALTENDE Macht vereinigen. Die Strategie basiert auf dem Prinzip, dass ein gespaltener Feind leichter zu handhaben, zu kontrollieren, zu besiegen oder zu zerstören ist.
So funktioniert die Strategie normalerweise:
Spaltungen schaffen: Die Machthaber können bestehende Unterschiede absichtlich ausnutzen oder neue schaffen – beispielsweise zwischen ethnischen Gruppen, sozialen Klassen, Religionen, politischen Fraktionen oder anderen Gruppen innerhalb einer Bevölkerung. Indem die Führung diese Unterschiede betont, erschwert sie es diesen Gruppen, zusammenzuarbeiten oder Allianzen zu bilden.
Schüren von Wettbewerb und Misstrauen: Die herrschende Macht könnte eine Gruppe manipulieren, um einer anderen zu misstrauen, indem sie Propaganda, Fehlinformationen oder Manipulation von Ressourcen einsetzt, um Rivalitäten oder Spannungen zu schaffen.
Kontrolle aufrechterhalten: Bei internen Spaltungen ist es unwahrscheinlicher, dass die Gruppen eine einheitliche Bedrohung für die herrschende Macht darstellen. Jeder Widerstand wird durch konkurrierende Prioritäten, Misstrauen oder Fragmentierung geschwächt.
Historisch gesehen wurde die Technik durch die Ereignisse und Aktionen entlarvt und kann hinter von den Mainstream-Medien gesteuerten Nebelwänden aus Manipulation und Geschichtenerzählen verborgen, indem falsche Narrative geschaffen werden, die die SPALTENDE Macht begünstigen, oder indem behauptet wird, diese Aktionen würden den Frieden, die Versöhnung, die Einheit, den wirtschaftlichen Fortschritt, den Handel oder etwas anderes fördern, während in Wirklichkeit das genaue Gegenteil versucht wird. Nicht jede einzelne beteiligte Gruppe oder Macht muss sich ihrer Rolle innerhalb der Strategie des Teilens und Herrschens bewusst sein, weshalb diese Strategie ewig Bestand hat.
Die Wirksamkeit von „Teile und Herrsche“ liegt in der Fähigkeit, die Entstehung kollektiver Opposition durch Ausnutzung oder Herbeiführung interner Konflikte zu verhindern, was diese Taktik zu einer wirkungsvollen Taktik macht, um die Kontrolle über unterschiedliche Bevölkerungen oder Konkurrenten aufrechtzuerhalten.
1
-
1
-
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@teardrop-in-a-fishbowl Yes, it is a constant struggle to "keep what's right, right".
The far biggest contributor to the far-right mentality was the war refugee crisis of 2015. That, was the effect of the war in Syria (an outside fueled proxy war), which was itself an effect of the not-sanctioned decision by the US (and a few lapdogs) to invade Iraq in 2003.
War in the ME, and the resulting civil unrest in Europe, was subsequently exploited by populist right-wing parties, who largely ran on "anti-immigration" platforms.
The rise of the right wing in Europe can be indirectly linked to the war in the ME.
So, who is advocating g for more war today? (Iran)
Note, more war, more refugees, more division (divide and rule)
Who is advocating Brexit?
Who is propagating closer ties to Poland, as a divide and rule tool?
The UN opposed the war in 2003. Who (today) wants to destroy it?
Who is behind all this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
These days it only takes seconds to debunk "narratives".
Try a search engine sometimes 😂
"The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Arabic: ميثاق حركة المقاومة الإسلامية حماس), referred to as the Hamas Covenant or Hamas Charter, was issued by Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) on 18 August 1988 and outlines the organization's founding identity, positions, and aims.[1] In 2017, Hamas unveiled a revised charter, without explicitly revoking the 1988 charter.[2][3]
The original Charter identified Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and described its members to be god-fearing Muslims raising the banner of Jihad (armed struggle) in "the face of the oppressors." The charter defines the struggle to be against the Jews and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in all of former Mandatory Palestine, and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.[4][5][6] The charter has been criticized for it use of antisemitic language,[7][8] which some commentators have characterized as incitement to genocide.[9][10] Hamas's 2017 charter removed the antisemitic language and clarified Hamas's struggle was with Zionists, not Jews.
Since choosing to run candidates for office in elections, Hamas has downplayed the role of its charter.[16] In direct contradiction of the Charter, in 2008 Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh stated that Hamas would agree to accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, and to offer a long-term truce with Israel." [wiki]
1
-
Notice how Rabin never used the term "full sovereign state" when he referred to this "Palestine", but the term "less than a state." Did you spot the use of [Israel's] "natural growth"? Critical question... Where to? Where would Israelis/Zionists "naturally grow" to, if there were equal neighbors, as a balanced power, which could actually stop any such Zionist settler "growth".
It is fairly clear what they wanted, and there are historical examples for this: the "pool of cheap labor" within the own borders, given a little bit of "independence" to manage own affairs, but de facto/de jure powerless to stop the CONTROLLING power, intended to be Jerusalem, as Jewish capital city.
It is literally what RSA did with their "Bantustans". Back then the people could not be fooled. They saw through the deceit, and rightfully called it out for what it was: just another Apartheid ploy to avoid the rise of equals.
Sad reality? Today masses of fools are being mislead into praising Israel's attempted implementation of Apartheid, while at the same time denouncing a similar scheme actually implemented by the RSA, as being bigotted/rascist.
Keep up spreading the truth 👋💪
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Chinese (a variety of ethnic groups, religions and linguistically related peoples in East Asia) were collectively wise enough to wake up out of their own CENTURY OF HUMILIATION and create a strong unity, as a balance of power with a single front door for own interests (Beijing).
CHINESE CENTURY OF HUMILIATION
For that historical analysis, one must first become realistic about the forces which were imposed on the Chinese ruling systems from OUTSIDE. During these roughly 100 years, OUTSIDERS used China as playground and a battlefield of systems/ideologies. After China started rising in power again after the 1970s, the OUTSIDERS (imperialist powers not from this region) intended to REPEAT their previous "success" of rule by division. Break up China, into smaller administrative regions, surround and encroach on them with military bases in neighbouring states like Vietnam (admitted by Robert McNamara), and become yet again easy to rule, dominate and use as steered TOOLS from outside by a variety of means (money, ideology, etc.). Forces of OUTSIDE division, do not DIVIDE other regions of the planet because they care about the "locals" living on the territories they wish to squeeze the resources from. These OUTSIDERS divide others because it reduces their collective power, and for own interests of gain models (cyclic dynamical systems of gain). One must also first become realistic with regards to what strategies of powers were employed by the "sides".
DIVIDE-AND-RULE ELABORATED AS IMPOSED ONTO CHINA DURING THIS ERA
"The policy which Britain has been pursuing for the last two centuries has brought her prosperity and greatness. After each victory, Britain seems, on the surface to have gained for herself no advantage whatever; all she did, she claimed to be an act of international chivalry and justice but a deeper analysis of British statesmen's claims reveals that they never speak the truth. Britain's key policy is to attack the strongest country with the help of weaker countries and then to join the weakened enemy in checking the growth of other countries and so on, and so on. British foreign policy has remained basically unchanged for two centuries. When Britain befriends or colonizes another country, the purpose is not to maintain a cordial friendship for the sake of friendship but to utilize that country as a tool to fight all threats to her supremacy. Therefore Britain always remains in a commanding position by making other countries fight her wars while she herself reaps the fruits of victory." Taken from The Vital Problem of China by Sun Yat-Sen, 1917
Virtually a template that describes every aspect of the divide-and-rule strategy, and that Europeans could have learned from, but never did, until all went down.
Unlike the Chinese, Europeans didn't learn the lesson.
THE EUROPEAN CENTURY OF HUMILIATION (1914 - today/ongoing)
The above template can be juxtaposed onto Europe (a variety of ethnic groups, religions and linguistically related peoples in Europe/Eurasia). Just like in China during its "Century of Humiliation" (1839-1947), in Europe, the local political forces which strove to put Europe First, as balance to the Wilsonian "America First" had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER during the 20th and 21st centuries. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for European interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside imperialist powers and their proxy domination. During these roughly 100 years after the 1890s, the European playgrounds were a battlefield of systems/ideologies.
--------------------------------------------------------------
HOW TO OVERCOME DIVIDE-AND-RULE
Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided systems, was of course a counterproductive strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. You don't fight the "fire" of division with more fire, but with water (unity). Unfortunately, it took the Chinese millions of deaths and misery, to overcome the divisions which were created previously by outsiders cooperating with a few local proxies during the Century of Humiliation. An effect of mass death and starvation which these outside dividers then finger-point at in a Black Legend, with their "look at how evil the communists are"-rhetoric. These people are too indoctrinated to figure out that their previous own IMPERIALIST actions CAUSED this as an attempt to squeeze outsiders meddlers out of China. One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity in a region. If systemically weak, and while systemically weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. As an example of history rhyming, this political/cultural capture set out to take over Central Europe's main power, Germany after 1920. The weak Weimar Republic was the perfect environment and breeding ground for an outside empire's takeover (cultural-, political-, economic capture), just like China's political weakness was exploited in the Far East. It was part of the "Americanization of the World" (W.T. Stead/1901), which TRIGGERED a local political response, just like in China after 1945. This RESPONSE was that of focussing more on traditional values, and top-down political rule, based on the own previous history. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division which will be systematically captured in a weak state/country.
IN REALITY, ALL THE TALKING MEANS NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL.
It is simply emotional capture, to ensure those who "love their countries" (patriotism) stay on to face what had been sown. That is the future of the USA, as it was for the UK after 1945. From "ruler of the world" to downtrodden economic collapse of the 1970s, taken as "poodle" under the wing of the USA. Unlike the UK, or Western European "poodles" there will be no "wing" for Americans to slip under, as they fail to match the ongoing rise of the Far East/Central- and East Asia following the year 2000, and this despite their best active efforts to crash the economies of even their "friends" (Japan, the 1980s), in order to bring them down.
DIVIDE-AND-RULE
The USA (collective) has ONE more chance to return to the "good ol' days" (debatable) of the post-WW2 era when everybody else was "down and out" (power/military might/influence) and Washington DC ruled everywhere with supreme with full spectrum domination, apart from the regions in Eurasia under the control of Moscow. Today, the "dividers" MUST divide everybody else, or go down the same path as London after 1945. That WW2 had already resulted in a weakening of the European powers, for the benefit of whoever was left (grand strategy) was also already clear. WW1 and WW2 was one global struggle with multiple layers and which merely had a 20 year gap in between. Do we live in eternal peace interspersed by wars, or do we live in eternal war, interspersed by peace?
EURASIA
After 1945 the chasm created by divide-and-rule, was just shifted across from Western Europe to Eastern Europe. The dividing line was between the Baltic and the Balkans, drawn by OUTSIDERS. Today, instead of a great power becoming encircled resulting in "something silly in the Balkans" (after the 1890s), it is a great power becoming encroached upon, resulting in "something silly in the Ukraine" (after the 1990s). The line was drawn, again by OUTSIDERS, between the Baltic and the Black Sea. The "marching route" is clear. Who is encroaching on who is also clear. Certain people never learn, and repeat the same transparent strategy again and again, as long as others can be made to suffer the abject ill effects, they won't care about the effects of their own systemic meddling and their own marching route.
As long as Europeans remain collectively too incompetent to figure out what they collectively lost with the conflagration of 1914-1945, then they will also be collectively too incompetent to figure out why and how they will lose again, if "WW3" is carried out as LONG WAR on their territories, as desired by their "best friends" who just so happen to gain if millions of others lose. Beware of those who turn up, telling you are a "winner on the right side of history" as you sit in the ruins created by LONG WAR.
Why the desirable LONG WAR (stated by Zelensky) is desirable for the OUTSIDE POWERS as benefactors of this strategy of financing LONG/FOREVER WARS (LONG WAR = desirable for the Atlanticist strategists/SHORT WAR to settle matters quickly, for the "encircled/encroached upon" on the "inside lines" of Europe historically, or Eurasia today and as desirable strategy). This is an example of history rhyming, for those with the geopolitical/grand strategic insight. We, the current generation, are literally watching on as "history rhymes."
1
-
@StevePowell-p9f From wiki (sources are listed there):
Actual objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China
Main article: China containment policy
As laid out by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-run strategic effort to surround Beijing with the USSR, its satellite states, as well as:
The Japan–Korea front,
The India–Pakistan front, and
The Southeast Asia front
Although President Johnson stated that the aim of the Vietnam War was to secure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a January 1965 memorandum by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton stated that an underlying justification was "not to help friend, but to contain China".[22][23][24]
On November 3, 1965, Secretary of Defense McNamara sent a memorandum to Johnson, in which he explained the "major policy decisions with respect to our course of action in Vietnam". The memorandum begins by disclosing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965:
The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain China.[25]
McNamara accused China of harboring imperial aspirations like those of the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States:
China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30s, and like the USSR in 1947—looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us.[25]
To encircle the Chinese, the United States aimed to establish "three fronts" as part of a "long-run effort to contain China":
There are three fronts to a long-run effort to contain China (realizing that the USSR "contains" China on the north and northwest):
(a) the Japan–Korea front;
(b) the India–Pakistan front; and
(c) the Southeast Asia front.[25]
However, McNamara admitted that the containment of China would ultimately sacrifice a significant amount of America's time, money and lives.[25]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MerryXmasMfkrs It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The narrative is too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture. Simply a look at a small pixel of the larger image, and therefore too "compartmentalized".
Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, ALL Europeans lost.
WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and Great Britain off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted.
WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that Atlanticists (the naval powers) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination.
In the end ALL Europeans lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After the Cold War this "rift" was simply "ruled" to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards.
Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain.
1
-
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
The picture he painted, is faaaaaar bigger than that.
If you're not careful, the entire apparatus steered by the global elites will have you hating the people who are being ideologically encircled and divided, and loving the people who are doing the ideological encircling and dividing...
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a noun, and a defined term.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Like the ideology of democracy.
YES, believe it or not, what YOU believe in, is an ideology.
Similar to this concept are systems of beliefs, systems of ideas, and systems of ideals.
ALL of these, need "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
They need you, yes, YOU, to lie, and kill, so they can steal in the background, and YOU, yes, "you", are not better that anybody else on this planet if you lie, and kill for an ideology.
These dumbed down masses reveal themselves by the way the speak...
They are all tools, of others.
These power players preach from their "boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy".
Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of them, must be wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nobody "hates her" because of what she is.
There is opposition, because of what she did.
Here is the reality...
Some people are born deaf.
Some people are born without arms and legs.
Are you nice to them, despite them being different?
Do you discriminate?
Some people are born with the "wrong" brain.
In around 0,5% of births, a "female brain" is born into a male body, or vice versa. Your god, according to your belief, wanted it like that. Obviously, if not, he would not allow it to happen.
https://www.papermag.com/victorias-secret-trans-model-2639631221.html
Be nice.
Don't discriminate, because they want the same rights you already have. That is the right not to be discriminated against, based on their personal convictions ...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of West Asia (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders have made use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people. First Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give a weak mind money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
1
-
1
-
Korea, Vietnam, Ukraine...
Will the little minions ("buck catchers" in strategy) ever learn?
Those who eagerly "carve up" others, even along arbitrary human-made boundaries on a map, dividing individuals, organisations, families, and businesses, are unlikely to agree with being "carved up" by someone else.
Korea was divided by imperialists during World War II (with the cooperation of the imperialist Allied camp) without consulting the local population about their priorities.
A few years later, they attempted the same in Vietnam, using the ongoing war of independence as a pretext (marketed as "the USA saving the world from communism"). This effort was unsuccessful.
The true objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China
According to Wikipedia: "Main article: China containment policy. As articulated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-term strategic initiative to encircle Beijing with the USSR and its satellite states, as well as: The Japan–Korea front, The India–Pakistan front, and The Southeast Asia front. Although President Johnson claimed that the goal of the Vietnam War was to ensure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a memorandum from January 1965 by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton indicated that an underlying justification was "not to assist a friend, but to contain China". On November 3, 1965, Secretary of Defense McNamara sent a memorandum to Johnson, outlining "major policy decisions regarding our course of action in Vietnam". The memorandum begins by revealing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965: 'The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they support a long-term United States policy to contain China. McNamara accused China of having imperial ambitions similar to those of the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States: 'China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30s, and like the USSR in 1947—emerges as a significant power threatening to undermine our importance and effectiveness globally and, more distantly but more ominously, to unite all of Asia against us.'
Note that this is a common tactic in international relations: accuse the "other side" of actions that one is undertaking oneself. The strategy of divide-and-rule is kept hidden, while the opposing side is accused of having malicious intentions, without providing any actual evidence (the concept of "accusation without proof"). To encircle China, the United States aimed to establish "three fronts" as part of a "long-term effort to contain China": 'There are three fronts to a long-term effort to contain China (recognising that the USSR "contains" China to the north and northwest): (a) the Japan–Korea front; (b) the India–Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.'
Later, McNamara acknowledged that containing China would ultimately cost America a considerable amount of time, money, and lives. As is often the case, "extending" a rising rival power incurs "expenses", including lives, which is why the intention is to create proxies in artificial entities like "South Vietnam" to carry out such containment for the dominant power.
This is divide-and-rule.
Favouritism, or the "paid/supported proxy", can be employed during peacetime to undermine rivals or wage subversive warfare, or during wartime to reduce costs and losses while gaining systemic advantages after a "victory". When a proxy fails to achieve this "extension of the rival", it is quickly abandoned or discarded to cut the "investment", and a new proxy is sought. This pattern was evident in the 1930s: in 1939, the "first proxy" identified was Poland, and when Poland failed to "extend Germany" for a prolonged period, it was decided to provoke either Germany or the USSR to invade Scandinavia (Plan R4). Ideally, both Germany and the SU would invade Scandinavia, leading to a potential clash there, distracting attacks away from the heartlands. While Great Britain and France still cooperated, this was straightforward: both would benefit if the war "pivoted away" from Western Europe/British Isles into Scandinavia. If the attention could be focused somewhere else on the map, a Battle of Britain and a Battle of France could potentially be avoided, if the Germans became bogged down in Scandinavia for example...
That did not occur.
However.
Align with such individuals at your own risk.
They do not adhere to the Christian values they consistently boast as being "oh-so-superior" and worthy of admiration...
North Korea/South Korea (implemented).
North Vietnam/South Vietnam (intention/failure).
East Ukraine/West Ukraine (in progress).
Always the same playbook.
The modus operandi has been consistent since 1776: advancing onto another power's borders (systematically), also through proxies, then blaming those who are encroached upon/encircled if they react, or blaming the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War advance began in the 1990s, so even if the Trump administration did not initiate the "marching order", it is a fact that he did not halt it either when he had the chance during his first term (2017-2021). This can be examined as empirical evidence (observation/map) which clarifies who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should avoid engaging with debaters who base their theories on ideology or emotions, especially not if the advocate reveals themselves as dogmatic, prone to logical fallacies or cognitive biases. Such individuals are not interested in outcomes but wish to make "debates" go in circles indefinitely, obfuscating, side-lining, and finger-pointing to evade the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current trajectory of the empire, which began when the USSR faced economic decline in the late 1980s, with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the advance)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the advance)
Continuously advance, trampling over one red line after another, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). If anything negative occurs, and lives are lost, always blame someone else. This type of imperialist behaviour, as demonstrated by Washington DC and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not begin solely after World War II. This marching order has been in place since 1776, with the first victims being neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territories were coveted. That was followed by Spain in the 1890s (put into action in 1898) whose desirable territories would create a link between the USA and East Asia.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries so that any economic surplus generated by that country is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US government, and especially to US bondholders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It remains the same today as it has since 1776.
The reality is that neither Trump nor any previous administration has halted this (systemic) "slow march" of systemic expansion, whilst getting the "buck catcher" to pick up the tab if things don't turn out as strategized.
Be cautious of the ideologically indoctrinated: Like a child, they confidently repeat things they do not know to be true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
HOW TO LOSE YOUR EMPIRE: 2024 VERSION
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all history books.
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Note the definition of ancillary: it does NOT mean "false" or "wrong." It simply states these theories, which could be correct in themselves, are not as important as other theories of a higher tier. Ever since the establishment of their Empire, London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." (From a primary source)
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. This had nothing to do with "Germany". Before that, it was France. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's fatal mistake was snuggling up to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the British Empire. This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address issues as they rose. The two powers started nodding off each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints. Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or taken under duress or outside pressure, or otherwise, are fallacies.
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
If you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
EPISODE I:
"... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races (edit: the term "races" was not used the same way it is today) becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
SOURCE: "ROYAL PAINS, WILHELM II, EDWARD VII AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what story we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
EPISODES II thru IV:
Lotsa other stuff happening.
EPISODE V:
If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centered imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens:
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003
Also known as the "peaceful transfer of power" like as if London had a choice.
Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover...
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.
If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power.
When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most?
Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.
After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided".
The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative.
"Special"-relationship in a power balance. These Washington DC power mongers must be rotfl...
London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century.
After 1945 there was no more multi-polar world to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new uni-polar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A Big Three to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
They preached Darwinism, and succumbed to it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The reason you hate today, is because the Empire you adore set up your garndparents homeland to fail.
"Furthermore, British officials worked to emphasise the differences in the Indian army, in an attempt to prevent a unification of Indians against British rule along the lines of race, nationality, religion, or caste (p49) ...British officials introduced laws over the following years to keep the army divided along caste and religious lines...Firstly, they increased the number of European troops that made up the army, which decreased the level of Indian unity found in the older Indian army (p50) ... As Lord Ellenborough, a British politician who served as Governor-General of British India from 1842-1844 stated: 'The fewer elements of combination there are in the native army the better, and therefore the more nationalities and castes and religions, the more secure we shall be.'(p 53) ... As another British official, Lord Elphinstone, wrote: 'Divide et Impera was the old Roman motto, and it should be ours'(p 54)." Stewart, N. (1951). Divide and Rule: British Policy in Indian History. Science & Society, 15(1), (pp.49-57)
"In their reorganization of the army after the rebellion had been suppressed, British officials implemented the tactic of divide and rule in an attempt to prevent any future mutinies" Morrock, R. (1973). Heritage of Strife: The Effects of Colonialist "Divide and Rule" Strategy upon the Colonized Peoples. Science & Society, 37(2), (pp.129-151)
"In physics, the observer effect is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner..." Wikipedia
The "instruments" which effected the outcome, were the lords in positions of power to implement the divide and rule strategy. They attempted to steer local entities against each other by emphasising what made people different, in order to avoid the humanity which unites people, based on what most people have in common.
By amplifying differences, rather than trying to smoothen these over, is one of the core techniques in the divide and rule/conquer strategy.
Scale that up to any desired tier.
All it needs is emotions, and you can steer entire continents.
1
-
1
-
Actually, it was quite easy solve.
What lacked was willpower.
As the definition "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power...
Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-----------------------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Same games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fact: By own admission, and known to all, the USA misuses NATO as a tool to ensure its global hegemony.
For that it needs "Euroweanies" that it can manipulate.
Just enough emotionally steered "Euroweanies" who are easily manipulated in a giant "divide and rule"-game, which uses a variety of emotionally-laden topics to incite outrage, tear open old wounds (history), and/or use negative human emotions like greed or the fear of losing out, etc. to stir up trouble.
"Trouble" can then be swum in, like a fish in water.
As soon as there is some signs of more unity, the various well-funded "think tanks" and "lobby groups" (aka "strategic studies"...ahem..."centers") remind the people how "evil" the "others" still are, what they did a hundred years ago, how they "wanted to kill your grand-dadda", whatever...
Beware of the dividers.
Age-old advice: "When a man is prey to his emotions, he is not his own master" (Benedict de Spinoza).
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]"
Or as the old "insider joke" goes: NATO's "function" is "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out."
Nobody needs "friends" like that.
When "mutual defence" becomes a secondary function, and is rated below "big power ambitions", it is time to think the unthinkable.
1
-
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” ― Edward Bernays, US propaganda expert (Book: Propaganda)
Or as George Carlin mused, "They OWN this place." They OWN you, enslaved your mind, dominate the way you think, via the supplied slogans you chant...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Matthew_Loutner The strategy you guys are looking for is find the junior partner.
Another example of this strategy was WW2.
During the era Imperialism, London never addressed its own collective attitude problem, which was that it wanted "junior partners" on the continent which would implement the aims and goals of Empire indirectly, and that all that was needed to ensure this was the strongest navy in the world ("Two Power Standard"). Lords with veto powers went around looking for "friends" and these "friends" were given the feeling of being equals. "Feelings" means nothing though.
Interesting in this respect were British intentions to find such perceived "equals/friends" in Sweden/Norway in 1939/40. The strategists here in Scandinavia were smarter, and knew exactly what their "function" was to "empires" (strategies). They therefore tactfully declined British advances in regards to "just passing through to help Finland", recognizing that "ending like Poland" was not a desirable potential future. These strategists knew what they were talking about, and the habit "empires" had of finding gullible "lightning rods" and "soft underbellies" for their own aims and goals, often leaving the chosen "best fwiend" in a state of total ruin. A little known detail tucked away in the folds of a few history books regarding how the world really works, drowned out the 99% of ancillary details...
Norway/Sweden 1939/1940 = Ukraine 2008 - 2022
The Ukraine today, is already "ending like Poland".
Little friends who will be encouraged and supported to fight to the last man.
Empire and her little helpers: "Can you bring me some more popcorn and chips, dear...great show, great show..."
Taiwan: ...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You can't because they are cowards, hiding behind walls and armies of bodyguards.
As millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Not Buy: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," buy 2nd hand quality products, or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just "not buy" ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join "not buy", because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, nothing has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by "not buying" all big brands. Start "not buying" them all.
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
All agreed.
Of course there were choices.
Back in the days of sail, British Admirals had wide-ranging powers, even of a political nature for obvious reasons (lack of communication).
It was also the most successful days of Empire.
Strange how historians would conclude that it was "generals sitting in Chateaus far away from the action" which lost many battles in WW1 and early-WW2, rather than allowing front-line commanders and officers to lead from the front, given "objectives", not specific orders.
True.
The specific orders by the Admirality, coupled with Churchill's "settle matters quickly" had 2 main effects:
1) it took the decision out of the hands of Admiral Somerville
2) put emense pressure, by dictated orders (rather than "objectives")
Even Churchill must have instinctively grasped that it was a mistake, and he prepared 2 speeches for Parliament.
One conciliatory, the other more defiant.
Somerville, given an objective ("ensure that the French Navy doesn't switch sides") would have meant enough leeway for alternatives.
Peace of mind for London, and a "face saving way out" for the new French leaders, barely in office.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. The USA could afford to wait. Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correct. End the War on Drugs.
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal: minor offences like being caught with a few grams of weed...
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dans.5745 Stating "France just wanted peace" is at best a misconception, at worst a straight out lie...
"In 1913, it had been announced that Poincaré would visit St. Petersburg in July 1914 to meet Tsar Nicholas II. Accompanied by Premier René Viviani, Poincaré went to Russia for the second time (but for the first time as president) to reinforce the Franco-Russian Alliance. On 15 July, the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister, Count Leopold von Berchtold, informed foreign countries through a back-channel of Austria-Hungary's intention to present an ultimatum to Serbia.[24] When Poincaré arrived in St. Petersburg on 20 July, the Russians told him by 21 July of the Austrian ultimatum and German support for Austria.[24] Although Prime Minister Viviani was supposed to be in charge of French foreign policy, Poincaré promised the Tsar unconditional French military backing for Russia against Austria-Hungary and Germany.[25]"
Yup, sounds like a...ahem..."blank cheque" to me...
[Continued]
"In his discussions with Nicholas II, Poincaré talked openly of winning an eventual war, not avoiding one.[21]"
Me: So much for "we just want peace" France...
[Continued]
"Later, he attempted to hide his role in the outbreak of military conflict and denied having promised Russia anything.[21]"
Yup. What a hero: blame the loser...
[From wiki, with sources at the bottom of the page]
1
-
@dans.5745 The "Germany shouldn't have built ships" point of view of many historians is flawed.
People, any people, independent of where they live, are affected by the events of the recent and relevant past (note, not the future, which they don't know about of course).
According to Churchill, all nations deserved living within secure borders.
https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-104/disarmament-fables/
(see Churchill's quote, concerning the rights all nations should have, to feel secure inside own borders)
So why did the German taxpayer support the construction of a large German Navy?
Easy answer: past events.
Kagoshima, Sebastopol (Krim War), Savannah, the Opium Wars, and hundreds of other "targets" ravaged by naval bombardment and wars as a result of squabbling over spheres of influence. That is simply what navies did back then. They bombarded. They blockaded.
That is also what influenced public opinion at the time (1880s and 1890s), and why a nation of taxpayers would gladly use their newly created wealth, to support the construction of a navy.
The object was not becoming the victim of another nation's arrogance of power.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Canton_(May_1841)
As it was, during WW1, the Imperial German Navy might not have broken the blockade of the RN, but they did avoid the RN from steaming into the Baltic, "Copenhagenizing" one German city after the next...
https://www.google.com/search?client=tablet-android-asus-rev&biw=602&bih=964&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=copenhagen+navy+bombardement&oq=copenhagen+navy+bombardement&aqs=mobile-gws-lite...
Of course, it's such fun "copenhagenizing" everybody else...
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Copenhagenization_(naval)
...but it's not so much fun getting "copenhagenized" yourself...
In fact, criticizing the construction of the Imperial German Navy from the comfortable position of hindsight today, makes as little sense as criticizing the construction of Chain Home or the ordering of large numbers of Hurricanes and Spitfires in the late 1930s...
For both , there was a justified "cause".
If one doesn't like the effect, then don't supply the cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dans.5745 Bolivar is correct concerning Iceland.
There were no "German invasion plans" to pre-empt/prevent, making the own invasion a pretext.
It was an excuse, using a false premise.
We must distinguish between "reasons" and "excuses.
Even if there had been, such an attempt could have been easily thwarted, because the German Navy had no experience, no aircraft carriers, no specialized transports, no marines with special weapons/equipment, etc.
Also: look at a map. Even if an extremely costly German invasion had succeeded, how would it have been re-supplied, in the face of overwhelming RN superiority?
Conclusion: Germany would never have risked it.
In reality, Iceland was needed by GB as a naval base for both aircraft and short ranged escorts, because in the upcoming naval war on the N.Atlantic convoy routes, it would be an invaluable "aircraft carrier" (for VLR patrol/ASW planes), as well as a refueling stop for escorts.
There is your reason.
The Allies occupied Iceland not to protect it, but because they needed it.
There is a difference between a (valid) reason, and a pretext/excuse.
Not saying GB shouldn't have done it.
Of course they should.
As a British leader in charge, I would've done the same, whilst at the same time ensuring that the lives of the inhabitants are as little affected as possible (no qualms in that respect).
But, as Bolivar said: The fact that one can do something, against no opposition, doesn't make the decision "right". It was still wrong.
IMO, it goes in the same drawer as the "should the USA have put their Japanese Americans into camps after PH"-debate. The answer remains same: It was wrong, but I would have done the same, considering the circumstances.
Rgds
1
-
It "started" quite innocently, way before WW2.
With a London policy.
I'm sure the British population and the inhabitants of Empire would have been happy if their toffs hadn't made Germany the enemy as a default setting.
The best way to avoid going to war altogether, is to have leaders who don't make others "the enemy" as a default setting...
[britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power]
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
The Germans, became "the enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.
It came first before all other considerations.
It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding
1) alliances
2) treaties (or no treaties)
3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord)
4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle)
5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint)
6) when to engage in arms races
7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences
Go over your history, and see its handwriting all around...
Enjoy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The question posed to Asians (mainly Chinese and Indians/citizens within these borders) remains the same as during the era of imperialism 200 or 300 years ago.
The obfuscators and dividers will use the same techniques in reasoning as they use in politics: they will "hop around" on criteria, just like 200 or 300 years ago, causing dissention in debates on the micro level (society), in the same way the power players "hop around" on entire countries/governments/capital cities/key politicians in geopolitics on the macro level...
The technique of "divide and rule"...
Hop over here, hop over there, whatever standpoint brings the own short-term advantage, because THE POWER has the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of not having to suffer consequences from it's own actions.
The question posed to all Asians remains.
Whether they can see that they are in the same positions they were in 200 and 300 years ago.
The dividers come with "promises" which they mostly don't intend keeping, or offer "treaties" (in which these dividers themselves hold the geographical advantage of distance), make all kinds of excuses why the dividers don't keep their promises, or why the dividers don't suffer the same percentage of harmfull effects in times of crisis/war as the "chosen ones". These promises are very enticing to power players, and offer the prospect of glory and achievement to the side the promises are made to, just like 200 or 300 years ago...
Anthony Blinken making some Indians FEEL (§§§, see footnote) very proud with repeated offers of NATO membership, just like previous US admins made such promises to the Ukriane, which no doubt made many Ukrainians FEEL very proud, and then the dividers with the geographical advantage, subsequently citing all kinds of "difficulties" why such "pwomises" then cannot be effected in a short timespan.
Meanwhile, exposing the "Ukraine"/proxy to extreme danger as the feet were dragged and dragged and dragged...
Of course, in the game called divide and rule, it is not the fact THAT it is a ridiculous offer, in view of recent events in the Ukraine exposing the danger of such folly, but rather the fact THAT such an offer is repeated. The fact THAT the offer is on the table, already causes mistrust/dissention amongst ASIAN neighbors.
Of course, if India refuses, the divider (of Asia), Washington DC can simply go to China and "promise Taiwan" to Beijing (signed away) in return for a deal, to surround Russia. The potential for "divide and rule" rests on the side with the geographical advantage, as long as the targets for division do not unite, specifically with a comprehensive Asian security agreement.
The question to Asians remains the same.
What are they going to do to create a SINGLE HEGEMONY (alliance) in East Asia, in order to speak with a united voice, against the POWER of division.
BRICS is not enough.
Any other deal or treaty, or the SCO in the current setup, or even the "UN's" laws and the "rules based order" cannot stand up to the POWER of divide and rule.
It needs a comprehensive security agreement for all of those in the FRACTURE ZONE 4 (stretching from North Pole, via Japan, Taiwan, through Thailand, the Indian subcontinent, towards the Middle East).
If no comprehensive security agreement is achieved, mutually beneficial for all, then simply wait for history to return ("rhyme")...
Or are Indian leaders like... first they came for Russia, but I did not care because I was not Russian. Then they came for China, but I did not care because I was not Chinese, and even saw an advantage for myself (economy) if China got "carved up" and weakened...
Indian leaders: It'll be great, if WE can CONTROL the WATER flowing into China, from Tibet...such tempting "offers" and promises...
"Around 1900" repeating for Tibet.
Finally though, if everything is burning, divided, in quagmire of revolution and war, and Asia the "new Middle East" as unfolded after the 1882 British invasion, followed up closely by the "Sir Lawrence"-types as the dividers of Arabs". The modern day version of that being the "Anthony Blinkens" of the world, finger pointing, and harsh language between neighboring states, and a tumbling towards "quagmire"-status, then who will speak up for India when the dividers come for you?
DESIRABLE OUTCOME in any divide and rule system: The dividers will subsequently have the "upper hand/higher ground" (leverage) of POWER for all future negotiations with the resulting "statelets", just like the ME after World War 1.
The secret towards more Indian "power" lies in the continued "power" of its neighbors, not these neighbors' weakness.
§§§Footnote: The appeal to emotion
Setting up the emotions generated by billios of minds, to set these minds up against each other, just like 200 or 300 years ago...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scaleyback217 It "started" quite innocently, way before WW1.
With a London policy.
British leaders made the strongest continental power/alliance/country "the rival/enemy" as a default setting as a matter of policy, and policy only...
[britannica(com)com/topic/balance-of-power]
According to London's own policy:
"Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."
The Germans, became "the rival/enemy" because of where they lived and what they had (economy/power).
They took over this "role" from France, after 1871.
They dared unite, and industrialize, and raise their own standard of living away from a purely agrarian society.
Note: nothing personal.
The policy didn't mention any names.
It was simply "policy".
Make the strongest country/alliance the rival, and "balance it out".
Nothing personal. It could be France one day, Russia the next. It could be "alliance x" one day, it could be "alliance y" the next.
"Temporary friends" one day, "temporary rival/enemy" the next.
After 1871, and especially after German industrialisation, it was simply Germany/the Dual Alliance.
A few London lords made entire nations the "enemies" as a matter of policy.
It came first before all other considerations.
It practically dictated how London acted (commissions as well as omissions) regarding
1) alliances (or no alliances)
2) treaties (or no treaties)
3) non-aggression pacts (or no non-aggression per accord)
4) neutrality in a dispute (or when to jump in and meddle)
5) whose "side" to chose in crises (irrelevant of "right" or "wrong" from an objective standpoint)
6) when to engage in arms races
7) whom to "diss" and whom to "snuggle up" to at international conferences/peace conferences/arms limitations or during international political differences.
Go over your history, and spot the "handwriting"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs.
Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent.
Of course, London already knew this.
That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem:
Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900).
And so "poor little Belgium" was born.
Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"...
France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war.
The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about-turn Jedi mind-control trick on weak minds :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first.
Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals.
It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up.
Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights".
It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At its core level, the theory of UNITY vs. DIVISION states that throughout history there were two opposing forces in action when it comes to the concept of gain. All other human interaction when it comes to the topic "gain" are subject to this. There are only two main forces at work, those who wish to create unity, and those which wish to foster division. Every single struggle for power ever, every single crisis about a man-made system ever, and every single war ever, has arisen out of these two opposing forces (causality). Anybody may of course try to find exceptions to this rule, and will find none, unless one engages in typical human behavioral patterns. Name the struggle, I'll point out whether it arose out of the attempt of creating unity, or division.
Note: words have definitions and meanings and context matters, not only when it is beneficial for the own standpoint. These forces are not the commonly held truism as being the forces of good vs. evil, but rather those forces which wish to unite, using a variety of techniques, and those forces which gain from division, using a variety of techniques of power. Stage 2 is then the friction, which is created as these opposing forces collide, then fosters the emergence of narratives of good and evil, by providing the catalyst (human nature).
Every single "good vs. bad"-narrative ever, has arisen from this very simple axiom. Since good and evil are easily spotted by most human beings, it then masks the forces which gain from divisions. Such forces at play use strategies to achieve means and ends. Dozens of such struggles can be included in the theory, and every reader may (if desired) set out to discover for themselves how their own world fits into the revealed reality, in other words include a personalized number of completely different tiers of power, regions of the planet, involved parties, individual actors, cultures, languages, etc.
Note however, that your brain shards information, like a computer (database sharding), and is therefore predisposed to favor DIVISIVE forces at work from the own standpoint. That means that the own brain automatically favors own unity (ingroup) whilst decrying the unity of others (outgroup). Personal opinions and standpoints can then be studied from a neutral position, revealing the operation of the limbic system and cognitive-emotional attempts at sidelining, of the originator of dissent.
They will point at the effects of their own policies, and point fingers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
London went to war on the continent twice, by own admission, to "balance powers" on the continent...
London's standpoint, by own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at a given time."
Primary source material:
[Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell = the strongest side is the default rival in peace, and the default enemy in war.
And so the London lords played their "balancing games".
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
Not satire at all.
That's what happened.
How absolutely funny...
The lords gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for their own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire.
Good riddance.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They "hopped on the scale" here, and they "hopped on the scale there", until they finally "hopped" their way into extinction...
Sad.
Good riddance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Advocates defending their systemic greed, trying to hide behind "good deeds," are usually easily exposed: they utter fallacies like "defending (superior) Western values", whereas in reality all they are doing is defending the dividers, who operate and instigate from superior positions of power. They think reality disappears if they simply do not address it.
Their own inbuilt bias means they are defending greed in the form of "50% for us" (to quote US strategist Kennan), because what they don't realize is that they were born into a belief system. The main reason why that belief system persisted, was because of the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION or POWER. Nothing else.
This isn't an fallacy in reasoning, or a false premise, or syllogism.
Overwhelmingly, people who are born into the belief system capitalism, will perceive it to be god's gift to mankind. Overwhelmingly, people who are born into the belief system corporatism, will perceive it to be god's gift to mankind. Overwhelmingly, people who are born into the belief system democracy, will perceive it to be god's gift to mankind.
All belief systems, mainly persists because advocates are born into the belief system (observation) or have been coddled into believing in it being superior as they grew up.
They are defending "greed" in the form of "50% for us" (or variations of that), for the minority, and that this minority of the world which is based in the USA or collective West, 12% of the world, has the right to rule over the rest of the world, by division.
Greed can be proven to be the MOTIVATION of the top tiers, even if not necessarily by all who live in such systems, and it can be corroborated by observation, a primary source of information.
--------------------------------------------------------
Most people think they are logical and reasonable. However most people are not logical, nor are they reasonable, but are usually biased and illogical, and are therefore easily deceived by their own top tiers, who need them as tools to create great gains, usually for those at the tops of the pyramidal shaped structures of POWER (aka "instruments of power").
A technique for exposing such illogical and unreasonable forms of argumentation, is as follows.
1) One asks an open question, or states a commonly held belief/theory. This can be anything on any political topic.
2) One then awaits an answer.
3) If the debater is knowledgeable about history, then the answer will usually be something along the lines of the agreed upon historical narrative. One then poses a counter-question, pending an answer: How do you know that these were the real reasons for the actions/reactions? (political motivation)
4) One awaits the answer, which then exposes exactly how logical and reasonable the debater is.
5) the correct answer to the question posed in 3) is of course something like (logic/reason): "I personally don't know that for a fact today, but that is what we have been told, or what sources say (other human beings individually/group writing something down)..." which is then followed by the currently valid explanation for the question posed.
When you get such an answer, you know that you're dealing with a low single-digit percentage amongst mankind, who is actually a logical thinker.
As far as any other answer, don't bother debating: these "debaters" will slither about, because they wish to reach a certain preconceived outcome. Specifically, try to wiggle their way around answering questions, or avoiding "offending" historical reality, all in defense of the supreme nature of the chosen man-made system they were coddled into following. They do their "premise/criteria hopping" thinking others do not notice how they obfuscate in defense of their man-made systems of greed...
These debaters will simply assume that everything written down is 100% "fact" (note that the word "fact" has a definition). Note that in this regard, one can prove that something was written down (fact), but one cannot prove what was meant with it (theory). They will repeat their historical leaders words, and state these as being "facts." Note, while these strings of "words" can be proven to be facts by sources, the motivations/reasons at the time cannot be known. Current debaters who simply believe another human being, then must also believe or assume that the motivations of such past leaders were pure and unquestionable. When one does that, one bows to authority. If one simply believes that everything written down is a "fact", one bows down to authority, which is a cognitive bias.
The logical thinkers know that ALL historical narratives are merely "theories" or "hypotheses" (which are different definitions), strung together out of a selection of facts & words.
That means, everything everybody "believes" is a theory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Everything explained here, is part of a top-down divide-and-rule strategy of power.
To the outside divider, it does not matter how divisions appear in a neigboring region or on another continent, since the dividers' only aim, is to avoid unity in a region/another continent. When you hear or read concepts like "avoid" or "fragmentation" it is always a part of a top-down divide-and-rule strategy of power, to avoid unity from formating elsewhere. This avoidance of unity elsewhere is implemented using a variety of political means, incl. but not limited to violence and war (Clausewitz as "war simply the continuation of politics"). To leverage these divides outsiders create local tools to implement more division, or "buck catchers" to defend the own power base (ratchet principle).
Historically, the MO is always the same:
Once an intransient continent has been created for oneself, the regional hegemony tries to implement transient regions for other powers. Today there are only two continents with sole hegemonies: North America (single hegemony, weak neighbors) and Australia (single hegemony, but economically insufficient to "rule the world").
At three key points in history (around 1900, just after WW1, and around the year 2000), Europeans failed to create an intransient region for themselves, and therefore will remain transient for the foreseeable future.
All the other continents apart from N. Am and Australia are "transient" and therefore easy to divide, by use of age-old strategies to create, and deepen divides.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Was ist „Teile und Herrsche“?
Das Gesamtbild der Geschichte kann verzerrt werden, und die Wirklichkeit kann manipuliert werden, um Millionen von Menschen zu täuschen. Die Geschichte der Einkreisungpolitik eine Eurasischen Grossmacht wiederholte sich nach 1990. Die Absicht der Hegemoniemacht besteht darin, die kleineren Systeme zu „verwandeln“, um sie zu Werkzeugen der Einkreisung (Stellvertreter) oder zu „unsinkbaren Flugzeugträgern“ für die eigene systemische Kontrolle oder Erweiterung zu machen. Dann produzieren Sie die gesamte Geschichte auch noch als „Schutz der Freiheit/Freunde/Demokratie,“ als "Freiheitskampf," oder irgentwelche andere Story das auch in Hollywood noch gut wirkt (Strategie des "Bread and Circuses" für die heimische Massen).
Die später als 1. und 2. Weltkrieg bezeichneten Ereignisse waren Teil derselben Feuersbrunst, die um das Jahr 1900 begann, als die Seemächte ihre kontinentalen Nachbarn umzingelten.
Für das folgende American Century von Henry Luce, war Europa einfach ein etwas größerer Landstrich als Großbritannien für Rom um das Jahr „0“: Die von Washington D.C. verwendete Technik war dieselbe, nämlich die Nutzung bestehender Teilungen. Solche Spaltungen für eigene Zwecke auszunutzen und zu vertiefen, ist die Strategie „Teile und Herrsche“. Ein proaktives Mittel, um eigene Interessen auf Kosten anderer voranzutreiben besteht darin einige zu bevorzugen (die Macht der Begünstigten zu erhöhen) auf Kosten anderer (die Macht der Geächteten zu verringern).
Für den „Spalter“ in der Gesamtstrategie „Teile und Herrsche“, sind die Vielzahl der Gründe, Motivationen, Ideologien, Rechtfertigungen, Meinungen, Ausreden oder die Interessen derer, die mitwirken, um die nützliche Spaltung für die höhere Macht zu erreichen, nicht von Bedeutung. Für die spaltende Macht spielt es keine Rolle, wie die Spaltung umgesetzt wird, oder wie bestehende Spaltungen vertieft werden, oder wer aus welchen Gründen auch immer hilft, oder ob diejenigen, die die Spaltung begünstigen und daraus Vorteile ziehen es überhaupt wissen, dass sie die Spaltung unterstützen: Was zählt, ist, dass es umgesetzt wird. Für den Spalter mit ein Geographischer Vorteil der Entfernung zu Gewaltereignissen (Abstand vom Geschehen) ist es nicht wichtig, warum die Werkzeuge zusammenarbeiten, sondern die Tatsache, dass die ausgesuchte Werkzeuge zusammenarbeiten, um Spaltung zu schaffen und irgendwo einen Teil des Planeten zu überwältigen.
Wie und das sind unterschiedliche Prämissen.
Das Imperium ist auf der Suche nach Gewinn, und es sind nur die eigene „Interessen“ wichtig.
Der Flächenbrand, der sich nach 1914 abspielte, war ein weiterer europäischer 30-jähriger Krieg (mit einer 20-jährigen Pause dazwischen).
Die so eingerichteten Spaltungen waren:
1) die Einkreiser und Seemächte (Großbritannien/USA) mit ihren kontinentalen Verbündete (wie beispielsweise Frankreich nach 1904 und Russland nach 1907).
gegen:
2) die kontinentalen Allianzen, die durch die Seeherrschaft von 1) eingekreist und daran gehindert wurden ausreichende Einflussbereiche für ihr Wachstum zu erreichen, und diese Einkreisungsstrategie begann als vorsätzliche Aktion der Seemächte um 1900 und wurde mit dem Vertag von Versailles fortgesetzt.
Diese Strategie wurde nach 1990 einfach wiederholt (Wolfowitz-Doktrin/US-imperialistischer Machtanspruch mit „US-Primärität“ als oberste Priorität). Niedergeschrieben, für alle sichtbar. Nur diesmal ist das Ziel ein anders: diesmal waren die Ziele der Globalen Strategie China und Russland. Nur wurden diesmal die „neuen Rivalen“ weiter nach Osten verlagert. Das Endziel unsere außereuropäischen Freunden ist China niederzuringen, wie es einst Europa niedergerungen hat, in dem es die sogenannte „Freude“ und globale Nachbarn als Werkzeuge wie auf ein „Schachbrett“ einsetzt und mit eine Strategie namens „Teile und Herrsche“ steuert.
Die ewigen Einkreiser werden ihren eigenen verdorbenen Standpunkt niemals zugeben, weil sie sich aufgrund der Realitäten, die sie ihren Nachbarn auferlegt haben, besser „fühlen“ und nicht beabsichtigen, einer einfachen moralischen Logik zu folgen: der GOLDENEN REGEL: „Was du nicht willst, dass man dir antut, das füg auch keinem anderen zu.“ Möchten Sie, dass man Sie bedrängt und einkreist? Dann tun Sie es auch keinem anderen an. Wenn man sich nicht an eine so einfache Logik halten kann, muss man der „Logik“ der Kausalität folgen. Der Fluch des ursprunglichen europäischen Irrtums.
Wenn der Erste Weltkrieg 1919 durch einen wirklich fairen Vertrag beendet worden wäre, hätte es keinen „Zweiten Weltkrieg“ gegeben und nichts von dem, was nach 1919 passiert ist, wäre passiert. Tatsache ist, dass die Planer in London, Washington DC und Paris während des Ersten Weltkriegs bereits 1918 ihren Krieg gegen Russland planten und „neue beste Freunde“ (Osteuropäer) brauchten, die sie als Stellvertreter opfern konnten, um den Großteil des Kämpfens und Sterbens zu übernehmen, während sie sich zurückhielten und ihre Marinen nutzten, um „an den Rändern“ Russlands zu knabbern und später mit SYSTEMISCHER EXPANSION und systemischem Profit und Gewinn einzugreifen. Warum ist das eine „Tatsache“? Weil es tatsächlich passiert ist.
Vertrauen Sie dem Albion einmal, und Sie sind für immer in seinen „Fängen“.
Heute?
Die Geschichte wiederholt sich.
Albion 2.0
Jeder, der „glaubt“, dass der 1./2. Weltkrieg jemals „zu Ende“ ging ist bereits ein Narr der sich für die systematische Expansion und den Gewinn von „Freunden“ opfert. Der Krieg wurde nur durch eine kurze kalte Verschnaufpause (Kalter Krieg) unterbrochen, und dann ging der Marsch weiter gen Osten. Jetzt streben sie den "Zweiten Kalten Krieg" an, weil sie glauben wieder als "Held und Gewinner" am Ende da zu stehen.
Die Marschroute des Imperiums, die begann als die UdSSR Ende der 1980er Jahre wirtschaftlich ins Straucheln geriet.
Systemische/ideologische Expansion als konzertierte Anstrengung.
- Osteuropa.
- Balkan.
- Kaukasusregion/Schwarzes Meer (südliche Zange des Vormarsches).
- Baltikum/Skandinavien (nördliche Zange des Vormarsches).
Dies war einfach die Fortsetzung des Plans zur Überwältigung Russlands aus dem 1. Weltkrieg, um die durch drei Jahre Krieg (1914-17) entstandene Schwäche auszunutzen und alles zu erschöpfen und auszudehnen. Daher war es nie im „Interesse“ der Sieger, ein faires Kräftegleichgewicht in Europa zu erreichen, wie es 1815 der Fall war (Balance of Power/Concert of Europe). Die Absicht bestand darin, ein Ungleichgewicht zu schaffen, das ausgenutzt werden konnte, unabhängig davon, was die politischen Tauben dachten, was sie damit taten.
Jetzt nach dem Kalten Krieg marschieren und marschieren Sie weiter, und wenn es eine Reaktion oder einen Widerstand (auch bekannt als „defensiver Realismus“) seitens derjenigen gibt, die bedrängt oder eingekreist werden, beginnen Sie mit dem „Fingerzeigen“ (narrative Kontrolle). Diese Art imperialistischen Verhaltens, wie es Washington DC und sein unterwürfiger „kollektiver Westen/NATO“ zeigen, begann nicht erst nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Fragen Sie die First Nations oder Mexiko.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Europe is already lost, and it started down the slippery slope following the year 1900. The window for adapting is closing fast. In this regard, I'll refer to a recent questionnaire carried out in Kiev, in which the interviewee honestly answered the question what the election of the Trump admin will mean to the Ukraine, with "The Ukraine is e-ffed, and will end like Poland in 1939." This is far from anecdotal, since it is an actual strategy of power to "bleed friends, and gain." Ukraine today = Poland 1939 = "fight to the last Pole" in 1939, and fight to the last Ukrainian soldier today. The way history rhymes, reveals the strategies of power.
That answer is valid for the USAs "friends" (see Kissinger's logic of it being "deadly to be the USAs friend"). The problem is that Europe is filled with weak and sycophantic leaders who make friends with people who tell them exactly what they can expect. For any Eastern European, an eternal NATO as protective shield is quite the speculative assumption as default setting for an argument, seeing that it was only quite recently formed (with regards to the history of Europe). There should therefore be no definite conclusion that it is going to last forever (Lindy's Law). NATO was created in order to surround/encircle the SU after WW2, as the "fist" of European power which was steered by the USA as it rose from the ashes of WW2, and for exactly this purpose. It's function was to ensure US global hegemony and domination, and encircle/encroach on the USSR together with Japan, Formosa/Taiwan, South Korea, etc. (as staging areas) on the other side of Eurasia.
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
Only the fact nukes were available saved the planet from a conventional "WW3"-scenario declared out of a local/limited war, and which would have invariably started soon after 1945, and after a short breather filled with limited wars around the fringes. All accompanied by new set of "finger pointing "Who started it?"-rhetorical geniuses who would have been set up against each other, sitting in the trenches of such a "conventional WW3"-scenario. Thank goodness both sides had nukes, so the restraint was systemic and declaring war would have been a MAD act.
That was of course in opposite to the logic of both WW1 and WW2, which were declared by the hegemony, from the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER (long war scenario) strategizing how it could win, if only such a declared war remained a "long war scenario" in which others bled for the continued status quo.
What saved the planet after WW2 was over, was that there would be no way to make a nuclear war a "long war scenario."
If one wants to reason and understand "Why WW1/WW2?" That's it. Create a situation which would be unacceptable for oneself (grand strategy of becoming encircled by a pattern of relationships), then impose this exact grand strategy onto the power rising in economic strength, and then wait for the situation to deteriorate, calling out a "world war" at an opportune moment, gathering in all the little "buck catchers" to do most of the fighting and dying, by standing off from the conflict as long as possible, using a GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER. After WW2, NATO was created (first step of escalation), in the self-declared Cold War, which started in 1946 ("Iron Curtain" as first emotional appeal, followed by further step-by-step strategy of escalating reality) because it was useful to the ambitions of Washington DC to become the world's leading power. Read the strategy papers. There was no "hot WW3" after 1945, because that would have been kinda self-defeating for the new global hegemony to declare it, based on some or other local limited war being declared the own "final red line".
Reality: Before 1945, the then global hegemony which was London before 1944/45, and Washington DC afterwards...
- Declared WW1 (out of a series of local limited wars on the continent), to avoid the single hegemony on the continent.
- Declared WW2 (out of a series of local limited wars on the continent), to avoid the single hegemony on the continent.
- Declared the Cold War, by encircling its main continental European/Eurasian rival. "Declaring" a world war out of that, was not possible, so wars remained "by proxy". Note the word "hegemony" is a term/defined word, not a country (different definition). The hegemony changed in the course of WW2.
Let's see if the pattern (geopolitics/grand strategy) rhymes again...
NATO can be disbanded or weakened the minute it suites the Pentagon/Washington DC, by simply withdrawing from it by pushing issues until some of the signatories sheer out, dividing its power (divide-and-rule = pull bricks from the wall to weaken it). During the Cold War, NATO became useful as "buck catcher" (John Mearsheimer theory) to be employed against the SU, and after the 1990s it remained a useful "buck catcher" for the hegemony after its purpose actually ended. From the ashes of this disbanded/divided and collapsing NATO, the next non-nuclear little power/proxy like Poland can then be steered by the hegemony, using its off-continental position of power, as political clout and military power.
If the Pentagon/Washington DC decides to leave NATO, who's going to stop them? Internally, in US domestic politics, there will be enough finger-pointing FOX-news-tier fools showing up screaming "Maybe those Euro-weanies should have just paid the 2%?!?"(fingers pointing/blame game). Any politicians dream-come-true scenario in free societies. The writers of history won't even have to work too hard to cover up the strategy. The narrative writes itself. The deception covers itself, by those who never read the strategy papers, creating a slew of "support" which justifies any pre-conceived strategy.
Rule the world, by division. If one already knows what games are being played, one can take educated guesses about the future, which will be quite accurate: The weakening of Germany/France, and their economic collapse? Already predicted, because that's what happens if one bases the own POWER on division, and follows the master divider (Washington DC/Pentagon) without questioning. That Europe will collapse because of its weak leadership structures of power, all taking place today as people watch on in surprise or horror? All already predicted, more than 10 years ago. All of these causal effects of own actions (power) and inaction (weakness) have already been discussed by top geostrategists over the past 10 years or so, and available to those who follow these discussions.
What happens if the USA simply adapts/adopts the "Greene Amendment," and simply determines that "NATO is not reliable" (sic.)?
If there's suddenly a lot of pressure from the various and multitude of competing entities of POWER within the USA (lobby groups, strategic think tanks, isolationists, non-interventionalists, plus the pressure of the so-called "street" as public opinion) to leave NATO, who in Europe will make them stay? In grand strategy, the off-continental European power can pull the "Uriah move": after Europeans become set up against each other, then withdraw when the flames fan up, then PIVOT TO ASIA and instigate war here, hoping more willing fools will step forward to "catch the buck" here too.
Note, that "The Pivot to Asia" IS already the strategy.
Set up others, then "pivot" somewhere else (grand strategy).
What makes anybody think somebody like a Mr. "America First"(see footnote) Trump cares about an economic rival to the USA's global hegemony, a united and strong Europe?
Note, that similar to the post-WW2 reality which set in after 1945, the last man standing is also a strategy of power.
If everybody fights and weaken themselves, who "wins"?
In order to see the reality today, we must be honest about reality in the past.
------------
Footnote 1:
Wiki: "The Withdrawal Clause; This means that after 20 years since the signing of the treaty which was in 1949, thus 1969, any member state that wishes to leave just has to inform the United States that it wants to leave, and then after a year it formally leaves."
Footnote 2:
The slogan America First was not coined by Trump, since it goes back to Wilson and WW1 and the starting phase of the US global ambitions, signaled to all interested parties by its declaration of war on Spain in 1898. Obviously, the USA joined WW1 for "cold, hard, American interests" (strategy of power, restated by Mitch McConnel as variation of Lord Palmerston's "states don't have friends, only interests" and the intent of gain). With WW1, the USA set out to economically capture the European "friends" through debt, or the debt trap diplomacy through war expenditures, hidden behind appeals to emotions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Footnote:
Note that according to Machiavelli, the "princes" connected to the land and who benefited from their hereditary rule were also the GATEKEEPERS and were connected to what they saw as theirs. Whether one likes this style of inherited wealth and power or not, their role was the gatekeepers of being the managers of own affairs. Opposed to that, in strategy and human nature, the "mercenary" is the OUTSIDER (internationalists/globalists) who came/come or the profit and gain and who are NOT "connected" to the land and its peoples at all, and place their own interests, often vested interests, BEFORE the people who live on the land. This narrative is often distorted today into meaning that "to be a Machiavelli is to be an a-hole" which is a distortion of what the book was about. Machiavelli states clearly to keep ones "princes" in POWER, for to lose them would mean losing the GATEKEEPERS, who via their own vested interests, also protect the people who live in entire regions of the world. Via Trojan Horses, "democracies" can be CAPTURED (culturally-, economically-, politically-, emotionally and militarily), as a process which can be studied as the actors reveal themselves through their actions/events. This can be studied as systemic analyses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ASIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside systems can "surf in and skim off the profits of division". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS OR PERSONAL PRIORITIES
Most European people are far too daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive them too, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that they end up thinking everything they do is justified, with "only a few exceptions" in order to seem fair...
Has your nation, or a leader already been "chosen as a favorite son of the West"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have with neighbors aside, or settle them fast peacefully, and don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme. Actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples across all borders.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these Western "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU today, for the gain of the outside Western Powers, just like divide and rule sacrificed your grandparents and previous Asian generations during the Era of Imperialism...
------------------------
P.S.: I cannot personally post this message myself too often, since YT autoblocks it as "spam" if I copy and paste it under videos too often. I need YOUR help. In your own interest of safety, please spread this message with regards to the age-old "divide and rule"-strategy of outside (non-Asian) powers. Thank You.
1
-
1
-
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
The picture he painted, is faaaaaar bigger than that.
If you're not careful, the entire apparatus steered by the global elites will have you hating the people who are being ideologically encircled and divided, and loving the people who are doing the ideological encircling and dividing...
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a noun, and a defined term.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Like the ideology of democracy.
YES, believe it or not, what YOU believe in, is an ideology.
Similar to this concept are systems of beliefs, systems of ideas, and systems of ideals.
ALL of these, need "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
They need you, yes, YOU, to lie, and kill, so they can steal in the background, and YOU, yes, "you", are not better that anybody else on this planet if you lie, and kill for an ideology.
These dumbed down masses reveal themselves by the way the speak...
They are all tools, of others.
These power players preach from their "boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy".
Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of them, must be wrong.
1
-
PART I
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), (§§§footnote) the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed." SOURCE: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive
US strategist in these think tanks lay out the scheme of what was going to be the new post-war reality, as a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" for the USA to control. Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under US supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.)
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." Note, all words in quotes were actual words used IN THIS OFFICIAL US DOCUMENT, and the thesis and its quoted sources can all be downloaded for free, from the www, and using these key words provided for your search engine.
---------------------------------
After around 1940, ... (quote) "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident (§§§footnote) – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. *Within this framework the role of France, Germany and ENGLAND of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations..."
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world."
From "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.", Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
1
-
PART II
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
-----------------------------------
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
§§§footnote
If you wish to know more about exactly how the British Empire was "being dismantled," the below comments section is comprehensive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheL4LMusic Maybe I should've written "certain ZIP codes" rather than "certain people" :-)
There is apparently a scheme in place to keep "alternative people" from voting, because they don't vote for conservatives, neither from the GOP nor the DNC...
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
— John Ehrlichman, to Dan Baum[45][46][47] for Harper's Magazine[48] in 1994, about President Richard Nixon's war on drugs, declared in 1971.[49]"
[from wiki, War on Drugs]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What links South America, the Arabian Pininsula, and Eurasia?
------------
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces/wealth when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
>>>
The people of Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
>>>
The people of the Americas, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people into "ingroups". In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the USA's power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life... "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS. Eden was a status quo divided by lies and deceit. Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the two Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly are two cheeks of the same gold-plated hind which sets out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, is the mirror of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being set up in a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
The games of the Albion.
The Albion 2.0 took over...
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Individuals should avoid debates following the principles of "right/wrong" since such debates go around in circles forever. Debaters cherry-picking their "facts" and "dates." Obviously, everybody has a different concept of "right/wrong." Instead, point out causal effects of own actions imposed, and which were NOT a result of a "round table" negotiation such as The Concert of Europe was. These decisions after the Napoleonic Wars, to create a balance of powers per mutual agreement after a major tragedy which affected all, worked amazingly well for 100 years, despite the limited wars which continued after 1815. The first step of those seeking peace was to acknowledge the security risks of all the major powers, but also avoiding the childish "finger pointing" at all the various hotheads who had previously escalated limited crises/engagements of regional character, thereby escalating these into a world-wide war, with millions of dead and millions more negatively affected.
With the Treaty of Versailles, Europe went down the drain when their leaders decided to abandon the principle of Machiavellian fairness, and impose an IMbalance of power de jure at a green table, without the deterrence to enforce it in the future. NOT a "Machiavellian" principle, but the reasoning of weak minds who know they wouldn't have to face consequences if anything went wrong (the biggest examples of the "mommy's basement hero" in history, were the "winners" of WW1 for that matter).
By not inviting all, REGARDLESS of the excuses made, they thereby created a de facto reality which was the same as pre-1914. The security concerns of a neighbour was simply ignored. The NWO was dictated onto one of the neighbours (Versailles) whilst another was simply not invited either. This an observation based on the facts. Why was the situation of pre-1914 recreated again post-1918 at Versailles? In 1919 Machiavellian fairness was thrown out the window again when one of the powers was encroached upon by an "encirclement strategy" AGAIN.
The first encirclement took place in stages starting in the 1890s, and continued following the year 1900. After WW1 the encirclement strategy was continued again; instead of a small number of large encircling powers as before 1914, there were now (enabled by the Armistice and Versailles) a larger number of smaller encirclers after 1919, who either allied with or aligned with the "winners" (France/GB/USA). Thereby, wanted or not, these new smaller states became the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer Theory) of outsiders. European history of 1,000 years, as either France or the Holy Roman Empire tried to encircle each other (2-front war danger), trying to get the vital upper hand in a struggle for Western European "top dog"-status, continued.
Just like in physics, every force creates a counterforce. The intention to "keep down/keep out/encircle" a neighbour, created an effect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal.
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Re. the question (rhetoric) of "What else could have been done?/How should anybody have known that strategic bombing would turn out to be not nearly as successful as hoped? (or as post-1945 studies reveal)"
Re. "efficacy", a stated policy (thinly veiled by euphamisms) of flattening entire cities, it was indeed very little "bang for the buck" when compared what GB put into it on their production side, seeing how a strategic air force is (and was back then) the most expensive form of warfare.
Why was Area Bombing entirely flawed from the outset? (1942 perspective). Also the related, and often repeated (but fallacious) rhetoric like "..but how much stronger would Germany have been?'
That is not a rhetorical question.
The objective of the rhetorical question is to place an opposing view under pressure, by asking a question to which would reveal a weakness in the opposing side's logic.
In this case, it not a successful example of rhetoric, because the answer is simple.
German production was limited by resources.
A truism re. "production" is that it depends on 3 main factors: raw materials, labour, finance (incl. the construction of production sites).
Let's KISS it: If even one one these is missing/lacking then obviously production will suffer.
In a nutshell.
Europe in 1940 (Nazi sphere of influence) lack the resources for a protracted war in which production figures would be a determining factor for the Axis to win.
Re. Europe.
No Bauxite (or very little, compared to the entire sphere of influence in Allied hands or secured connections) = no aluminum
No Nickel = no armor
No Chrome = no high grade steel
No tungsten = no tools
No rubber = no tires for trucks
No oil = no mobile warfare.
German production would not have been significantly higher, because they did not have the raw materials, or access to those places in the world which had these resources. Anybody who states that 'German production would have been higher', should also follow it up with a full assessment of where the extra raw materials for a higher production would have come from, and more importantly, the oil to fuel the weapons of warfare (tanks, planes, artillery tractors, etc.)
German production came to a standstill around early 1945, when advancing ground forces cut off the last remaining connections to the sources of raw materials.
1
-
1
-
1
-
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They used tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up. The USA could afford to wait. Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
'Bitches' are the ones who are "reaping what they have sown"...
Whether a soldier in a muddy trench 5,000 miles away, or simply being tormented by your own TSA...suck it up, snowflakes :-)
From globalreach
"In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria."
But, I guess facts don't matter when you've got feelings. Right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Around 1900:
There was an informal alliance of "English speaking races" taking shape, which was busy "informally nodding off" each others' conquests.
The logical conclusion with regards to that should have been that according to age-old rules, the answer would have needed to be to create an alliance of "non-English speaking...ahem...'races'..." (to quote the advocates of "English speaking races" ruling the world").
Logic/reasoning: "Balance of Power"-strategy, which is neutral and unbiased.
The fools were elsewhere.
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: Edward in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.'
An ancillary detail, which seems to have gone under in the clutter.
"Civilizing factor" of course, nothing else but the hooded language of these "few" to kill a few people every now and then, in order to gain themselves, while convincing millions that they were the 'good cops'...
A few key London leaders thought they could use their geographical advantage to divide the continent, and thereby always be in a position "to rule" during crises and wars. In the end they became overpowered themselves: In the reality of strategy, the Truman Doctrine was the de facto "division" of Europe by Washington DC. Note that in geography and in geopolitics "Europe" includes GB and Russia. Germany could be "kept down", and the old friend and ally Russia was kept out as a matter of doctrine.
"Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with (feelings). As Huxley remarked ... the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny 'failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.'..." Neil Postman.
Huxley is less well-known, but far more correct.
The information, sufficient to understand "what happened" (in history), and "what is happening today" (news/headlines) is out there. But "what happens/is happening" is drowned out by a cacophony of irrelevant information, leading the overwhelming majority of people to simply "switch of"...simply repeating "narratives" in order to fit in with their surroundings.
Majorities ending up thinking their own "narratives" are the only correct ones.
Mission accomplished.
That is what strategists aim to achieve.
"Divide and rule/conquer."
Europe has been "divided" and "ruled" over for more than a hundred years.
Huxley points out how being confronted with millions of ancillary details, to confuse and divide cause most people to simply switch off...
Today, the problem is not that there is too little information which is "controlled by a few 1%-ters" (Orwell).
The issue is there is too much clutter (Huxley).
Huxley correctly points out that leaders don't really have to hide/burn much with "Operation Legacy"-style deceit, one just has to make it too boring or complicated to read for the overwhelming majority of citizens of a country. That makes the deceit right out there in our faces.
Those so convinced pay the taxes to bankroll the "cops", while the profits have always been raked in elsewhere.
Of course (reality) "military industrial complexes" have existed ever since the first blacksmith realized he could earn more by selling swords to a rich king, rather than to sell ploughs to poor farmers...
1
-
1
-
PragerU are not telling you the whole truth.
Venezuela was ruined by "populism", not "socialism".
Google the definitions, and realize that PragerU is a propaganda channel, which skews facts in order to gather support.
China is a "socialist state". To be exact, a "Marxist Socialist" state.
Venezuela fits the definition of a social democracy, and it failed because Chavez bribed supporters with state revenue, funded by a high price of oil. When the price of oil caved in, he could no longer fund the promises he had made, and shifted more and more to threats, rather than coercion (more "stick", less "carrot").
Note, all of the above are "internal politics".
Today, the price of oil is back up, but US sanctions are stifling a recovery. Note, that this is "foreign meddling" building on the foundation of a corrupt system.
Same happened in Greece, minus the extreme foreign intervention. For decades, Greek politicians had lavishly coaxed supporters with gifts, predominantly paid for by generous EU loans. Greece collapsed when cheap EU stayed out after the 2009 economic crisis.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA and divide Europe and rule the world...
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
Regarding in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's leaders, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement, amongst other less "valuable" suitors (like Germany, see below comment), was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped in to avoid any form of continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below).
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Have you ever wondered why your entire "history" sounds like a 6-year old's understanding of the world at best, or the plot of a Hollywood movie at worst?
"Well there were the good guys ("us" of course) and then there were the bad guys ("them" of course, with finger pointing) and then the bad guys were soooooooooo bad and invaded their neighbors because they wanted to wule the whoooole world and then the bad guys won a little bit in the beginning and then aaaaallll the good guys who were my fwiends got together and fought weally weally hard and then the bad guys lost..."
Theories based on good vs bad leave a lot of room for bias and interpretation depending on the vantage point of the storytellers of history. These stories are therefore overwhelmingly subjective, and therefore appeal to the emotions of an audience. Nothing Wilhelm II or Berlin did in the lead-up to 1914, was the REASON London didn't want an agreement/accord/alliance/alignment with Germany in times of peace. Conclusive fact: The London lordships made agreements with Russia and with France to encircle Germany, and with the USA even though these states/empires were invading, exploiting, oppressing and killing millions in their drives to expansion. Making such "ententes" or "rapprochements" (aka FAVORITISM, not binding alliances), was therefore an implementation of the divide and rule technique of power, always apologized for by disguising it with a myriad propaganda-style "selective truth" techniques.
It does not matter what any individual thinks. Such "logic" of simply being able to make statements which have no foundation or semblance of logic, and then simply stating these false premises/syllogism as being "the universal truth" is coming to an end. This type of Anglo-saxon logic and narrative simply does not matter anymore if one no longer wages the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of power. There is a shift in the balance of powers in the world today, and other nuclear powers simply don't care how the USA/collective West defines their carefully selected "truths" and "rules." It does not matter what you say, it does not matter what some or other influencer (incl. politicians) blathers into your TV or on your podcast, it does not matter how you chest thump around.
Reality: This time around, the powers we have decided to surround and encroach upon are nuclear powers and they don't have to care what any US/Western individual thinks is "true", nor do they have to care what our US/Western system determines to be "true" or be the currently favored "rule" is going to be, at the expense of those who have to live with what is left over after the giant vacuum cleaners have skimmed the cream off the top with their competitive advantages.
Because even the "rules" made up is FAVORITISM.
Look at a map, and see who the current "favorites" are.
Favoritism is always the implementation of the divide and rule technique.
Around 1900, and around 2000 is history rhyming.
Here is the reality. It does not matter what you think, or your leaders proudly state are their new rules.
The "rules based order is a fairy tale, never written down, never agreed upon, and never signed as accord.
In case anybody chooses to disagree, show me the "rules based order" as agreement/accord/alliance, signed and ratified by the world it is imposed onto.
It does not exist.
*It is divide and rule, by means of selective "enforcement" by the "corrupt cop" of history out for own interests.*.
CONCLUSION:
Today your rivals are nuclear powers: they don't have to CARE what you (individual) think is "true" or is the "rule" whilst your empire is slowly creeping up on their borders and spheres of influence, or try to surround or encroach on them with old Roman era schemes. If the USA/collective West is going to keep on encroaching, or trying to take over spheres of influence, you are going to get your sorry "50% wealth is mine"-ass fried, and then it doesn't matter how many pushups you did that morning, or how beautiful you think your rich neighborhood looks, how lovely your boom boom tanks and aewoplanes are, or how much of the world's resources you think your systems have a right to CONTROL [with fingers gesticulating wildly, pointing everywhere else but the own systems of power].
The people who gain from an imperialistic setup they implement are overwhelmingly not going to die from the disasters growing out of the foundations they lay down. Throughout history, they've always managed to pay those who overwhelmingly don't gain, to sit in that muddy trench, for the gains of those at the tops of the pyramids...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA/collective West is like the allegory of the unbalanced spinning washing machine. Their entire mechanism is to avoid balance, therefore exploiting eternal domestic/international crises/violence is the name of the game. The load inside totally unaware of the "Why?".
___________________
Because..."avoid" is all this giant machine ever does [see footnote].
AVOID THE EQUILLIBRIUM
That is the sole aim of the "affairs of the city" which is per definition the system of politics.
Divide and conquer works because not everyone involved knows that they are taking on a role in a power game. That's how the strategy works. Very few people really need to understand it. In English, the principle is called "Useful Innocent/Useful Idiot." From a position of power, you can animate people (usually through money, or ideology) who play a role, but they know not what they do.
The peoples in your "neck o' the woods," have been ruled by division since the beginning.
Because it's easier to divide people based on personal differences than to unite them based on their similarities. Strategically ambivalent elites use this to their own advantage. Now the intention is simply to avoid the unity in your society, in order to "rule" over the dissenters, which is the classic "divide and conquer" principle. This strategy is kept under wraps, due to a systemic desire to be "good", and on the "right side of history", and therefore overemphasizing the actions of philanthropists, political doves, peace activists, religious leaders, etc.
At the same time the activities of political hawks sowing divisions are downplayed, relativized, apologized for, mostly by politicians and strategists as the "story tellers" of history. But also by commoners, who simply parrot the stories without thinking them through, and who are NOT privy to the overall strategy (divide-and-rule in all its intricacies and nuances).
The main interest of these people for which we have been fighting wars for centuries has been the relationships between organized systems of finance and power, and systems of resources and manpower. Because united they are the only power that could threaten this group. They must make sure that the unity of others does not happen. ... For these elites ... the greatest fear is an overall creation of a unity of technology, capital and natural resources, and labor, as the only combination that has frightened the elites for centuries. So how does this play out? Well, they have already put their cards on the tilted table. They draw their invisible lines onto society.
Today all our so-called "leaders" are too weak to create systemic unity, to avoid their "friends" simply drawing lines all over the place, which they cower down to and must obey.
Like a ratchet, one click at a time, the "marching empire." Endless wars, constant disagreements, using imperialism to stay on top. Using "levers" of lies and distrust, via power players. Creating favorites: favoring the proxies who bow down and sacrifice themselves for the mastah. Pointing fingers, everywhere else, using the POWER of the mainstream media.
Divide-and-rule/conquer.
The oldest trick in the book...
Who has the POWER? Who has always had the GEOPOSITIONAL advantage of power to rule? The GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all other "buck catchers" (tools and other instruments of POWER in the Roman era style), but could not be reached themselves at any point in a historical timeline due to a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic- or political advantage?
“Divide-and-rule/conquer” as a standard strategy of power and thus the cause of nearly all conflicts in the world connects the dots on the timeline of history. Being far from the events resulting from their own meddling and political activities and being able to reach all other regions, but could not be reached themselves.
All they want is peace, they say. Who gathers the pieces of the great wealth and systemic gains when everyone else has failed to unite?
Different terms. Different eras. Same games...
The opposition that wants unity and equillibrium in a region is the "bad guy."
We, who seek true peace and harmony, are not outnumbered. We are out-organized.
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
Forget "3D chess." Everything you know is a variation of reality. They are playing 5D chess with the minds of 2D checkers players, within the compartmentalized brains of people who think they are smart.
》》》》》
Footnote:
Giant spinning/framing machine = MIMAC = cyclic dynamical systems of power
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From wiki:
"In War Is a Racket, Butler points to a variety of examples, mostly from World War I, where industrialists, whose operations were subsidized by public funding, were able to generate substantial profits, making money from mass human suffering.
The work is divided into five chapters:
War is a racketWho makes the profits?Who pays the bills?How to smash this racket!To hell with war!
It contains this summary:
War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
Butler confesses that during his decades of service in the United States Marine Corps:
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."
A new generation of racketeers are "standing down/standing by".
They are smiling in anticipation of rich profits...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
...because Hasan is right.
For context:
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Training "terrorists"?
How'd that work out?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Churchill would've loved to "fight to the last Frenchman", whilst withholding fighter planes, and fresh divisions in England.
They would pay the price for Mers later.
The big picture...and how the little piece of the puzzle called "Mers el Kebir" fit into it.
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Search for London's Policy of Balance of Power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying a continental power or dissing it, was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings.
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...game over...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
May all those future prospective "best little fwiends of America" take a very long, and very good, and very deep look.
Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Armenia, Georgia, Baltic States...and, and, and...
This could be YOUR leaders in a few years time, if you don't deliver upon the prospect of "extending Russia" (US strategy paper talk about using millions of human lives as tools for the USA's own expansive aims) or "extending China" for American interests.
Millions dead, but Washington DC is salivating about your resources, and what's "in it for me" with a POTUS more interested in ratings. Donald "this is going to be great television" Trump as supreme slimeball in chief, with his low-life "Bread and Circuses" plebs at his feet...
My apologies to America's sane half, and we will know you from how you speak, but the rest of the planet must rid themselves of the outside influence of these scumba(g)s at the top of the USA or forever lose.
Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Armenia, Georgia, Baltic States, Philippines...and, and, and...
Take a good long hard look at "poor little Ukraine".
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline?
Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers.
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same butt which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity.
Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."
Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power.
In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS.
Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket for the modus operandi. Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
---------------------------------------
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correct 100% and WW1 was a war of choice.
Because each country which joined WW1 did so voluntarily, with the exception of Belgium.
There were no binding defense treaties (like NATO is today). The leaders of each country therefore implemented what is known as "war of choice". Each nation only has its own historical leaders to blame.
Blaming Germany for it, is a fallacious form of argumentation known as "outcome bias". That means that historical decisions once taken are judged by the outcome, rather than judged by what the original intention of the decision was.
As far as "poor Belgians" as Casus Belli for GB and the Empire....
First off: "poor Belgians" was an emotional argument, same as "WMDs" and "Saddam Hussein involved in 9/11" back in 2003....and its always the same people who are going to be fooled by it. The young, and the ignorant.
Belgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB.
In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
According to historians, the British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war", in other words, Belgium was Casus Belli.
Correct?
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did not invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". In other words, no invasion, no Casus Belli...
Also correct?
Berlin therefore approached London, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
Belgium was a so-called geostrategic barrier to ensure the Policy of Balance of Power, and protect the British Empire. GB fought WW1 for own interests, not the "safety of others" or any other emotional argument.
1
-
1
-
@matsjonsson9492 @shirakou1 Hasan is correct.
He might not have chosen the right right words, but in reality he is correct.
"America" is a country, an inanimate object.
Yes, it "deserved" what it got.
Even the Bible said "reap what you sow".
The west, starting after WW1 started meddling, invading, playing divide and rule, destabilized, drawing lines on the map, imposing leaders and imposed mass immigration by Europeans onto them ....
First GB and France as the alpha male, then later the USA joined in, meddling in their world. Nobody asked them.
Not the other way around. I don't see any Arabs dictating our leaders, exploiting oil on Texas, or drawing lines on the map, carving off chunks of California, giving it to Mexico...
Oil, was the root cause of that western meddling.
The birds let loose at the end of WW1, came home to roost...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamessones4044 I've got some fascinating documents for you, about the plans those with actual power, made for your system...
PART II
"What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116)
"By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally." (Page 117)
"Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized – and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003)
In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers.
-----------------------------------
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
§§§footnote
If you wish to know more about exactly how the British Empire was "being dismantled," respond...
1
-
Sometime in the 1880s:
Washington DC
Strategy meeting:
"How's the Restoration coming along? Should we start thinking about how to....ahem....'manage' those rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling Europeans?"
Voice from the back row: "Let's do the same as we did to all those Injuns, we divi..."
Chorus: "Oh, just STFU, Larry."
[long silence]
Smart Alec: "How about we tell some of 'em they are better than others, and make them our 'favorites'? How about we give some of them the feeling that they 'deserve praise' more than others? Then we build the favorites up, one slow step at a time..."
Chorus: "Now yer talking..."
Larry (small voice): "Oh cool. I mean they got their chance to balance us out with a comprehensive European security agreement, after 1882. Need I say more?"
Chorus: "No!"
Larry: "Can I mention that it'll be cool revenge for us for all those years of efforts to surround and encroach on us while we were weak and little, fanning the flames and calling us 'naturally divided anyway', so no harm in London and Paris fanning the flames and earning a few Pounds, and setting us up against each other so we bled even more, and..."
Chorus: "Will you stfu, Larry?"
Larry: "But won't it be unfair to the Germans if we pick the French and Brits as our favorites, because Germany was the only nation which has never done that to us, and have actually aided us indirectly with their own unification wars in 1870/1871?"
SIGHS & FACEPALMS ALL AROUND
The Indian Wars had largely been decided by the mid-19th century.
After the American Civil War a period of time (about 25 years) was used to consolidate Washington DC's hold over North and South America.
1895: The First Anual Convention of American Internationalists under the motto "Enough Restoration".
Washington DC strategy meeting, 1895: "Listen up folks: enough consolidating our gains. We're going to make some of those Europeans our favorites, and some the default 'not so friendlies'..."
Voice from back seat: "Errr...won't they notice that that was exactly what we did to Native Americans, before we stuck 'em ALL into the caboose?" [caboose = reservations]
Chorus: "Will you stfu, Larry!"
Everybody else: "Seriously? Is that guy Larry still here?"
**"In the early Cold War, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson combined the concepts of preponderance and bandwagoning. As he put it, the United States was going to have to be *"the locomotive at the head of mankind," while the rest of the world was going to be "the caboose." (wiki)
Note, to all the cool kids here, a "caboose" is the dirty car at the back of the freight train, were all the riff-raff go.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wolfgangkranek376 Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar.
Washington DC s strategy is constant, using a geographical position of power.
Figuring out the USA's foreign policy is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it.
Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism.
The American Century: currently uses divide-and-rule onto others as continuation of policy, and is hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism...
It means to AVOID the unity of all others by fabricating dissent which riles up negative emotions globally [which is how the contents of this video fits in].
The powerful use deception to torpedo any attempt of regional/over-regional/global equilibrium covertly (hawks). Good cops (neolibs/global-lusts) and bad cops (imperialists/militarists), hiding behind facades of empires, talking down to, and gaslighting the plebs in their "bread-and-circuses"-INequilibrium, all well-trained to be finger-pointers at their favorite bad guys...
This is divide-and-rule.
We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized...
PIC: Political Industrial Complex
FIC: Financial Industrial Complex
NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex
MIC: Military Industrial Complex
CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex
They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". As countermeasure to divide-and-rule, the world needs to implement a global equilibrium (natural order) as man-made "balance of power" (policy), to avoid a few million human beings creating "gardens" for themselves, at the expense of billions of other human beings, like the USA/collective West has done to the "jungles" these past 500 years, hiding behind their stories of hubris and jingoism...
The "divide and control/rule/conquer"-world is intact. It is practically as old as modern civilisation, and has never been defeated. Those with true power will do their utmost to ensure that the "divide and rule"-world we live in today, will rule for all times, because the DIVIDERS win, if all others fail.
The divide-and-rule system is a formless headless global system composed of every imaginable race, religion, ethnicity, language group, class, creed as an "ingroup" of power. This ingroup which intends to DIVIDE emergent unity elsewhere, contains all forms of "personal conviction" as "-ism" imaginable, with only a little input from top tiers.
Their aim is division.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@STRONG-JUSTICE For Israel, the so-called "2-state solution" was always a farce and a political technique to "drag feet eternally" whilst wrongs persist in the background. Yes, what you explain is "kicking the can down the road" (strategy), let the wrongs continue, while behind closed doors the promise to the own people and Knesset was that the neighbors were going to be kept down, or under the boot (Rabin stated clearly in the 1990s that for Israel, Palestine was going to be, as direct quote "less than a state"), and all subsequent Israeli admins followed this "standard" which is in effect the "Bantustan," the "cheap pool of labor," or aka "apartheid."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
chained2it ....because you are confusing "cause" and "effect".
Google it.
The easiest way to muddle up history is confusing cause and effect.
The current situation is an EFFECT of past actions, which started following WW1. Before that, the political conditions in the Levant /ME did NOT effect the world at large.
Irrelevant of whether YOU personally considered it "right" or "wrong", it did NOT effect world politics.
Constant western meddling has turned it into the situation we now witness.
In 1919, floods of immigrants and refugees arrived, following an ancient myth, ideologically indoctrinated to think that they already owned the land. They were WHITE immigrants, and foreigners (passport holders i.e. nationality). They arrived in hordes and started displacing and politically disenfranchising the people who ALREADY LIVED there.
These locals were not stupid. They had seen what happened for 500 years when "white man with forked tongue" arrived somewhere, suggesting a...cough, cough..."mutually acceptable deal"..
Of COURSE they had the right to fight back.
Do you think they wanted to end up like the Hawaiins, the Aborigines, the Native Americans, the Mayas or Incas?
Today, the land grabbing continues.
It will also never stop, because a certain fraction of Jews believe that their "god" gave them ALL the land between the Nile and the Euphrat, and the only way to achieve that is in the condition of constant duress, strife, or war.
THAT is "the cause", which started by grabbing "a little bit of Palestine" in 1919...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
EPISODE I:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
1
-
I see.... The USA has the most powerful "weapon" on its side: feelings.
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Rape of Belgium, as told by a British Empire (apologist) historian.
Let's start at the beginning by painting the broad picture of Belgians, "British sense of justice"-style.
From wiki: "In the period from 1885 to 1908, many well-documented atrocities were perpetrated in the Congo Free State ... These atrocities were particularly associated with the labour policies used to collect natural rubber for export. Together with epidemic disease, famine, and a falling birth rate caused by these disruptions, the atrocities contributed to a sharp decline in the Congolese population. The ... population fall over the period is disputed, with modern estimates ranging from 1.5 million to 13 million."
Oh I see.
The Belgians who lived in the early-20th Century were greedy profit-driven slavery fanboys/fangirls.
"The boom in demand for natural rubber ... all vacant land in the Congo was nationalised, with the majority distributed to private companies as concessions. Some was kept by the state. Between 1891 and 1906, the companies were allowed free rein to exploit the concessions, with the result being that forced labour and violent coercion were used to collect the rubber cheaply and maximise profit. The Free State's military force, the Force Publique, enforced the labour policies. Individual workers who refused to participate in rubber collection could be killed and entire villages razed...." (wiki)
Of course the poor inhabitants were brutalized and enslaved by militarist merciless Belgian invaders.
These rascist "lordpeople" (Herrenmensch) organized "operational groups" (Einsatzgruppen) calling themselves the ForSSe Publique, and pillaged and murdered, thinking that nobody could ever pillage and murder them back.
"The severing of workers' hands achieved particular international notoriety. These were sometimes cut off by Force Publique soldiers who were made to account for every shot they fired by bringing back the hands of their victims. These details were recorded by Christian missionaries ... were made known in the United Kingdom, Belgium, the United States and elsewhere.." (wiki)
Everybody knew.
Obviously, every single one of them was in on it, because they did not revolt against their king.
No public overthrow/revolution against their state = as a nation they were in accord.
A typical way Belgians terrorized and brutalized the locals placed under their protection: "One junior officer described a raid to punish a village that had protested. The officer in command "ordered us to cut off the heads of the men and hang them on the village palisades ... and to hang the women and the children on the palisade in the form of a cross".[35] After seeing a Congolese person killed for the first time, a Danish missionary wrote, "The soldier said 'Don't take this to heart so much ... The Commissioner has promised us if we have plenty of hands he will shorten our service.'"[36]." (wiki)
Everybody knew what they were doing, because "Belgian Hans" went home proudly telling everybody, while showing off his fortune as he told stories of millions of "severed hands".
Of course that means these Belgians WERE ALL THE SAME.
They knew for years, and did nothing to overthrow their king and government.
The Belgian troublemakers had "sown" for fifty years, and terrorized their poor subjects.
They were a militarist warlike people, who had stolen the land and resources of the impoverished original inhabitants: they sowed the wind, and in 1914 to 1918 they reaped the whirlwind...
From wiki: "The Rape of Belgium (French: viol de la Belgique, Dutch: verkrachting van België) is a name given to the pillage of Belgian towns and systematic murder and mistreatment of Belgian civilians by German troops during the invasion and occupation of Belgium in World War I ... the German army engaged in numerous atrocities against the civilian population of Belgium, including the destruction of civilian property; 6,000 Belgians were killed, and 17,700 died during expulsion, deportation, imprisonment, or death sentence by court.[2] Another 3,000 Belgian civilians died due to electric fences the German Army put up to prevent civilians from fleeing the country and 120,000 became forced laborers, with half of that number deported to Germany.[3] 25,000 homes and other buildings in 837 communities were destroyed in 1914 alone, and 1.5 million Belgians (20% of the entire population) fled from the invading German army.[4]"
Suddenly, everybody was reminded of all that "empire"-plundering they had engaged in themselves, growing fat off the suffering of millions of slaves.
Not so nice when the shoe is on the other foot, eh?
That's when the whining started..."Boo Hooooo, oh poor us".
Spare me the tears.
Cry more.
They obviously deserved everything they got.
Had there been a "one-for-one" revenge, every single Belgian would have been killed.
They got off lightly, considering what they had done.
Pity it wasn't more who were enslaved and brutalized, because the oppression of The Congo continued right through into the 1960s (de-colonialisation, with more murder and plunder).
Today the Belgians are nice people, but back then they just had to be taught a lesson they would never forget.
And thus ends the nice story of the Rape of Belgium, as told by a British Empire (apologist) historian...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@miemsliva4464 Yes.
Because...
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dan Morgan Yes, that is correct.
One could also state that it was one of the first successful attempts at stopping colonial expansion -- "nipping it in the bud", so to speak.
Of course, times had changed since 1919/1948.
Who knows. If it hadn't been for the Cold War, "Israel" today could have spanned from the Nile to the Euphrat.
After WW2, the Cold War started, and the two Alpha males in the ME were now the USA and the SU. The two previous Alpha males (France, British Empire) had to take a back seat.
At this stage, the USA was not willing to risk a world war as a result of Israeli hawks expanding their borders. Today, with Trump/Pence...not so sure.
The area is extremely volatile. The balance of power which had been in place for 50 years is beginning to erode due to the various wars, civil wars, wars of proxy in the region.
Israel is forging an alliance with the Saudis, directed at Iran.
If there is going to be a spark, the whole region will blow up.
In such a chaotic mess as war, the "Eretz Israel"- dreamers might seek to expand Israel's borders at the expense of one of her neighbors (like we saw in Europe after WW2).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@crawkn I also actually used "mainly" which means that I don't exclude other factors contributing towards any measurable "more peaceful world."
The problem with the theory you stated is that there is no way to prove whether there would be no more wars/very few wars, if only the entire world were composed of democracies. And to get there, and destroy other forms of government, a democratic political system has to lie, and condone killing (all imoral behaviour), which then defeats the objective.
Democracy is the heliotropic model, which simply strives for perfection but can never reach it, due to human imperfection, which (granted) has a pacifying domestic angle to it, but with regards to International Relations, it is an entirely different game.
The systems of democracy, coupled with capitalism/corporatism are as much systems intent on gain (Internationalism/Globalism/Imperialism), and playing dirty games, as any other political system. These "games" can always lead to wars.
1
-
@crawkn Yes, all agreed.
It isn't possible to measure things with absolute accuracy which are abstract in nature. That incl. all systems of power and influence, -isms, and all concepts relating to political power.
Personally I prefer to look at the systems of gain only, cutting out all the hubris and biases, and then infer which strategies of power are/were used, both in the current context (current affairs), as well as in the historical analyses.
When one gets down to the fundamentals in systems which intend to want to "win" (that incl. democracy as system) one can see there are basically two forces at play: those systems which wish to unite and grow, and those systems ranged against that, which wish to the avoid growth of other systems by division. They all resort to strategies of power to achieve own growth at the expense of other systems in a zero sum reality.
You can go up and down the tiers of power and systems, and see that it boils down to unity vs. division. Those that gained unity for the own system, try to avoid other systems achieving it.
1
-
@crawkn The complexity theory you explained, is a study in itself.
There is another layer to the interaction, which is how individuals or groups consider solving problems, which is either problem-focussed or solution-focussed (not a dichotomy, because these are nuanced concepts).
If one falls into the trap of considering problems as complex, one would tend to focus on the problems. If one focusses on the solution which needs to be implemented, one can work towards finding workable compromises.
I've studied history and current affairs for 35 years years, and every major event taking place, or which ever took place historically worth writing down as relevant, fits the 2 main categories (unity/division).
That does not mean that other criteria are/were not important to individuals, either alive today or at any point in history. It simply means that any personal opinions matter little, if they were not implemented. What ultimately counts is what is/was implemented, not what anybody thinks (ideas, ideology, opinions, etc.)
If you wish to do the test, you'll find all events fit these categories: create unity, division, not relevant.
Ghengis Khan? An empire which achieved partial Eurasian unity.
Arranged against that, were the forces which tried to avoid that (division).
What happened elsewhere, was outside of the scope (for example, events in South America had no impact on the events in Eurasia).
The Treaty of Versailles?
It was a divide and rule strategy by outside powers, which divided Europeans with a "ruling." One simply wipes away all the different opinions, cognitive biases (perceptions), -isms at play (incl. political movements), individual emotions, etc. to realize that what was actually implemented by those in positions of power, which was a division of Europeans. Qui bono, from European "division"?
The main category in this type of analysis is actually to figure out what was "not relevant/applicable" for the events unfolding the way they did. Once one can do that, one can figure out how the powers that actually steer unfolding events, interact, using strategies of power.
If one continuously falls into the trap of considering that everything is complex and messy, one of two main results are created on individual levels: 1) analysts get bogged down by the details, missing the big picture, and 2) people avert attention, usually steered by their own emotions when looking at events, and turn away. Such distraction and disinterest (indifference, ignorance, complacency) can then be exploited by power players.
1
-
1
-
@crawkn Personally I'm not a "divider," so my standpoint is to support leaders who aim for balanced powers, by creating unity to create a balance, so that no one system is in a position to overpower any other.
That is ancient and often-repeated advice according to Polybius or Hume. If a system loses its power, it cannot stand up to another power, on equal terms, and it will eventually get overpowered.
The focus of every system should always be to ensure that it is on an equal footing to all other systems, even so-called "friends."
It's what happened to the British Empire.
It failed to establish a European balance of power with an equal power to the USA, while it was still strong, around 1900 or so, so that Washington, D.C. had little problem with dismantling the British Empire using economic warfare techniques after WW2. Many people don't know how the USA did this: Washington, D.C. used the divide and rule strategy of power, to break up the individual parts of the British Empire, by making better trade offers to the individual British Dominions (as super "nutshell version"). This is described in great detail in the book Super Imperialism by the economist Hudson, a few yt channels, and specific books, but is not widely known.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@antondelacruz9362 Well...actually there is. There still is slavery everywhere in the world. Not "officially" or "sanctioned" by society, but hidden in the form of "trafficking", often aided by corruption by the very people who are soposed to implement laws to protect victims.
Laws are simply there to be benefitted from by these "bad apples" of the system. Often, the "good apples" do nothing, because of loyalty, comradery, "best friends" who need support, etc. Human failures allow "illegal slavery" to persist, and often the system themselves do too little to stop it.
"Good" or "bad" is often subjective. The Bible says for a good reasoin "not to judge". Do not judge others (unless of course in serious cases of exploitation or oprression), and especially not to "stomp around" in self-satisfied "own back patting"-mode, secure in own moral superiory.
Again, the Bible states to be humble, and work on own failures (the "splinters in own eyes").
No, China will not become "good" if the USA should collapse for some reason.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is apparently a scheme in place to keep "alternative people" from...ahem..."certain ZIP codes" from voting, because they don't vote for conservatives, neither from the GOP nor the DNC...
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
— John Ehrlichman, to Dan Baum[45][46][47] for Harper's Magazine[48] in 1994, about President Richard Nixon's war on drugs, declared in 1971.[49]"
[from wiki, War on Drugs]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
An eternal NATO is quite the speculative assumption, seeing that it was only quite recently formed (with regards to the history of Europe).
There should therefore be no definite conclusion that it is going to last forever.
It was created in order to surround/encircle the SU after WW2, to ensure US global hegemony and domination, and encircle/encroach on the USSR together with Japan, Formosa/Taiwan, South Korea, etc. (as staging areas) on the other side of Eurasia. Only the fact nukes were available saved the planet from a conventional "WW3", which would have invariably started soon after "WW2" ended, and after a short breather filled with limited wars. A new set of "finger pointing "Who started it?"-rhetorical geniuses would have been set up against each other, sitting in the trenches of such a "conventional WW3"-scenario...
Thank goodness both sides had nukes, so the restraint was systemic.
NATO was created because it was useful to the ambitions of Washington DC to become the world's leading power.
NATO can be disbanded or weakened the minute it suites the Pentagon/Washington DC, by simply withdrawing from it by pushing issues until some signatories sheer out.
After the 1990s NATO became useful as "buck catcher" (John Mearsheimer theory) to be employed against Russia.
If the Pentagon/Washington DC decides to leave NATO, who's going to stop them?
What happens if the USA simply adapts/adopts the "Greene Amendment," and simply determines that "NATO is not reliable"? If there's suddenly a lot of pressure from the various and multitude of competing entities of POWER within the USA (lobby groups, strategic think tanks, plus incl. the so-called "street" as public opinion) to leave NATO, who in Europe will make them stay?
Cool as a "Uriah move": set up Europeans against each other, then withdraw when the flames fan up, then PIVOT TO ASIA and instigate war here, hoping more willing fools will step forward to "catch the buck". There will be enough finger pointing fools showing up screaming "Maybe you Europeans should have just paid the 2%?" (fingers pointing/blame game)
Any politicians dream-come-true population. They won't even have to work too hard to cover up their strategy. The deception writes itself, by those who never read their masters' strategies...
What makes anybody think somebody like a Mr. "America First"(see footnote) Trump cares about an economic rival to the USA's global hegemony, a united and strong Europe? You don't think any of this is "true"?
----------------------------------------
footnote
Wiki: "The Withdrawal Clause; This means that after 20 years since the signing of the treaty which was in 1949, thus 1969, any member state that wishes to leave just has to inform the United States that it wants to leave, and then after a year it formally leaves."
footnote
The slogan America First was not coined by Trump, since it goes back to Wilson and WW1. Obviously, the USA joined WW1 for "cold, hard, American interests". I hope nobody thought it was to "save the world".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's divide-and-rule.
At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule.
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others...
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favouritism.
"Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Africa, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the behavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD"
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact. It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of. What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of those in search of profit and in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. For the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact that it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From NATOs website:
"NATO Allies welcome Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO and they stand by the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance. Decisions regarding NATO membership are up to each individual applicant and the 30 NATO Allies. No one else. Russia has no right to intervene and cannot veto this process. Like every country, Ukraine has the sovereign right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security, one that Russia has also signed up to, including through the Helsinki Final Act (1975), the Charter of Paris (1990), the NATO-Russia Founding Act (1997) and the Charter for European Security (1999)."
Sounds "fair", right?
It is literally how "divide and conquer" works.
Seriously? The "alpha" graciously "allows" the "beta" to choose world afairs?
It is literally "history repeating" in "rivers of blood".
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...bye, bye..."
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct FACT: they did nothing.
First baited.
Then pwomises made.
Then sold out, when they DID next to NOTHING.
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct date on the timeline which is March 1939, when they did nothing.
The Ukraine today?
First baited.
Then pwomises made.
Then sold out, and they DO next to NOTHING.
Errrr...shouldn't they have considered that in view of escalation and Mutually Assured Destruction, before the guns started firing?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jaime Lynd Where did I write that "blacks should be protected"?
As far as im concerned, EVERY person deserves protection from discrimination, but not "protection" from being the butt-end of a joke.
As far as I'm concerned, stories which are clearly jokes are fine irrelevant if they are about blacks, Asians, Jews, Whites...whatever. Roseanne has explained herself, and apologised and deleted the tweet, which is why I said "I wouldn't have fired her". The douche who did is clearly an idiot.
That is what I meant with people should "grow a pair".
There is a BIG difference between "a joke" and "discrimination" though. Believe me, if you should EVER be fired BECAUSE you are a Christian, I'll be there and fight for your rights. Same as I'll be there to fight for the rights of every other case of discrimination.
But "jokes" and "discrimination" are two completely different things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jaime Lynd I don't get the point you are trying to make.
Roseanne worked for a company. The boss decided to fire her after her tweet.
Now, if Roseanne feels she has been unfairly treated, she can go to court.
She can do this, because it is a free country, exactly the same way as the baker did...
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/june/jack-phillips-masterpiece-cakeshop-wins-supreme-court-free-.html
He went to court, and won.
I don't get your point.
It is a free country, not "your country", "my country", "the bakers country" or the "gay couples country". Everybody has the same rights, and so does Roseanne.
If she thinks she has a case, she should go to court.
What you or I think is irrelevant to the issue. Ours are just personal opinions...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Words can be "spun".
The reality of "what happened" cannot.
Here, an unknown version, of a famous historical event "framed" according to our current MSM standards.
"The Herero revolted in early 1904, killing between 123 and 150 German settlers, as well as seven Boers and three women ..."
What terrible people, who (quote) "deserved everything they got."
Everybody knows that history started that day.
Obviously, the Germans had a right to defend themselves.
The press was all over the place going "Do you condemn the KHerrero terrorists??" at the start of every interview with a "Herrero apologist". Whenever questions were asked, just go "But it's a war" and follow up with a slogan like "They asked for it," or "Don't start something you can't finish," or "How can anybody live with neighbors like that?", or one or other of the typical short brainless comments under every "Gaza war" MSM video on youtube. When attrocities happen, claim innocence and point the finger... Did you hear that one about the "40 beheaded babies" too? Right thru to today, there are still a few useful idiots parroting that one...
Do you think you cannot be deceived by words? Think again.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau with re. to framing and spinning, or wording in propaganda: "There are always four sides to a story: Your side, their side, the truth and what really happened." The ingroup reality, the outgroup reality, the spun narrative that comes out of that, and the mangled timeline of events which starts with what the MSM wishes to elevate in importance, and follows (sometimes) with what they wish to hide or downplay.
With the DARVO strategy, and a nice sounding story, one can reverse "victim" and "offender" in every historical scenario.
"Deny the causes, accuse the oppressed, then reverse victim and offender," is happening and you are watching it, right now.
One day, everybody on the planet will have always been against this...
Now, scroll down in the comments of any typical pro-Israel vid, and confirm the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Fact is that Trump, or any other previous admin, did not stop this "slow (systemic) march".
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemon.
1
-
@RasputinRussiano The biggest danger to the world are ideologically indoctrinated systems, filled to the brim with "usefull innocents/idiots" which have always wanted to rule the world.
Search the term ideology in a dictionary.
It is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ALL of these, need vast amounts of support in order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER.
It is is easy to become the tools, of ideologues.
These power players preach from their "soap boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy". The greatest example of doublespeak ever: it was actually always the intention to "make the world safe for corporations" as Smedley-Butler already revealed 100 years ago.
Strange, that the Bible these ideologues hold dear, says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One of these axioms, must be wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To the outside divider, it does not matter how divisions appear in a region or on another continent, since their only aim, is to avoid unity in a region/another continent. When you hear or read concepts like "avoid" or "fragmentation" it is always a part of a top-down divide-and-rule strategy of power, to avoid unity from formating elsewhere. This avoidance of unity elsewhere is implemented using a variety of political means, incl. war (Clausewitz as "war simply the continuation of politics"). To leverage these divides outsiders create local tools to implement more division, or "buck catchers" to defend the own power base (ratchet principle).
Historically, the MO is always the same:
Once an intransient continent has been created for oneself, the regional hegemony tries to implement transient regions for other powers. Today there are only two continents with sole hegemonies: North America (single hegemony, weak neighbors) and Australia, where you live (single hegemony, but economically insufficient to "rule the world").
At three key points in history (around 1900, just after WW1, and around the year 2000), Europeans failed to create an intransient region for themselves, and therefore will remain transient for the foreseeable future.
All the other continents apart from N. Am and Australia are "transient" and therefore easy to divide
1
-
1
-
1
-
The distorters of history lie about everything. Even the Bible they claim to love so much....
When one does wrong, it doesn't matter how one justifies these wrongs.
Or, the true meaning of the Biblical "reap the whirlwind".
In the Bible (Hosea), Israel allied with the devil (Assyria), rather than trust in God, and subsequently lost their worldly "empire" (Hosea).
The biblical wisdom of not allying with evil (Stalin/communism) has been distorted over time, to become a justification for own actions ("reap the whirlwind" = punishment).
A fallacy.
It is only half the story, or "lying by omission".
Because "evil" has even less scrupples than oneself, and therefore allying with evil will mean that one will get screwed over by the devil one has allied with.
Read Hosea.
Even if one is an atheist, these wisdoms are based on thousands of years of human observations.
By own admission, GB allied with the devil (Stalin), and then set off to destroy the German people, rather than letting the two devils (Hitler and Stalin) "slug it out" to mutual destruction on the Eastern Front, while concentrating on the own priorities (Western Desert, Battle of the Atlantic, etc.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "freedom and democracy"-argument as a cover story for ulterior motives has a long history.
THE PROTOTYPE COLOR REVOLUTION
"For Jefferson, as he wrote to Abigail (in private), it was the end of an epoch. It was the end of one epoch and the beginning of another in Europe too. ... In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution ... who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile..." Adams and Jefferson : a Revolutionary dialogue / Merrill D. Peterson, Digital Library of Georgia Online Plattform
Jefferson and Adams, no doubt the "inspiration" for hundreds who would follow in their wake, such as Victoria "handing out candy to the MAIDAN" Nuland, as "revolutionary training experts", trying to divide other systems for the own gain.
Setting up such "Color Revolutions" throughout their history, and training/supporting revolutionaries in the name of freedom, whilst in reality simply expanding the own spheres of interests by dividing others, has had a long American history. The divide and rule strategy of potentially damaging opposing systems (in the above case, in Europe), are kept in a state of revolutions and upheaval using the "freedom - revolution - democracy" arguments.
Obviously, at this early point in history Washington DC had very little power. But as her power grew, so did the influence of the own divide and rule/conquer techniques.
Asia beware.
Keep a lookout for the tell-tale signs of a US led divide and rule strategy, to set up Asians against each other as a repeat of history.
Making use of the own geographical advantage of distance, the US advance via staging areas (like Hawaii, or the Philippines 1898) continued one step at a time, as other nations were set up against each other with clear intent, as revealed by private discussions and letters...not the kind words and speeches intended for the consumption of the MSM news readers, since even waaaay back then all MSM was already in the hands of the billionaire class.
A few years later...
"From the outset of hostilities, Roosevelt, his pro-Japanese sympathies notwithstanding, privately wished for the continued presence of Russia in East Asia to serve as a counterweight against Japanese expansionism. He perceived that Japanese domination of the region could prove as detrimental to American "Open Door" policy objectives as had the Russian domination. As early as March 19, 1904, he expressed in a letter to his friend Cecil Arthur Spring Rice (then the secretary to the British delegation in St. Petersburg) a hopeful supposition that "the two powers will fight until both are fairly well exhausted, and that then peace will come on terms which will not mean the creation of either a yellow peril or a Slav peril.” The astonishing pace of Japanese arms through the succeeding months gradually convinced the President that a rapid cessation of the war was necessary to preserve Russian influence in the contested region. Writing to Whitelaw Reid, the American ambassador to Britain, on June 5, 1905, Roosevelt admitted that he "should be sorry to see Russia driven out of East Asia,” and averred that "driven out she will surely be if the war goes on.” In sum, he stated to Senator Henry Cabot Lodge on June 16, 1905, "It is best that (Russia) should be left face to face with Japan so that each may have a moderative action on the other." 1994 Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Jonathan Bennett Ault College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences (pp.49-51)
The same so-called good guys of history, because for these powerful US statesmen and their willing local tools, "crimes are those that others commit" (quote Noam Chomsky).
These dividers of entire nations and continents are above the law.
Don't ever expect the American legal system to punish such advocates of divide and rule and the bloodshed it results in.
Don't expect a majority of Americans to call out their leaders for what they are doing.
They either haven't been informed, or don't understand because of their warmongering MSM, don't know, don't care, or even if they did, are not going to stop their leaders...
The overwhelming number of Americans, in the sinecure comfort of their "mommy's basements"-existences, are not like Noam Cholmsky, John Mearsheimer, or Brian Berletic, and many others who know what their government is up to and are actually willing to speak out.
They are the real heroes of history, following in the footsteps of such "prototype whistleblowers" like Smedley-Butler...
The "revolutionary training"-experts care little about the subsequent bloodshed. They are in complete disregard the biblical rule "do not steal/kill", those responsible will "wash hands in innocence", and "point the finger elsewhere" as deflection from their own actions. It is also arguably the cheapest way to expand the own sphere of influence, and gain markets for own products, which is why they do it.
It is a cheap way to aquire spheres of influence because the heavy lifting, and bloodshed, is borne by local individuals who had been set up against each other, using the emotions of individuals to create little systems of "revolutionary"-spririts...
Asians beware...
The "dividers" WILL come for you again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Teemo6544 There are dozens of reasons why Japan surrendered, and these were a result of the final year of the War going very badly for Japan.
Here are just a few.
In case you denied that these reasons played a role, then please state why.
1) virtual destruction of the entire IJN
2) virtual destruction of the merchant marine
3) US Marines capturing territory in the Pacific
4) US led alliance (army) capturing territory in the SW Pacific
5) failure of last ditch weapons (Kamikaze) to make an impact
6) losing Axis partners in Europe (meaning no further division of war effort for the Allies) in other words "totally alone/ no allies"
7) failure of campaigns in China and Burma
8) facing starvation due to submarine blockade
9) conventional fire raids as deadly as nukes burning down entire cities in one night
10) absolutely zero chance of successfully repulsing an allied landing (despite propaganda to the opposite)
11) danger of having a homeland carved up like Germany, into "zones of occupation (including a Russian occupation of their island, rather than a mainly US occupation), should the unwinnable war continue
12) failure to design successful successors to the 1937-era weapons of 1941/42
13) complete lack of raw materials, or access to territory with raw materials
14) no oil, or fuel in remaining territory
15) lack of weapons for the "home army" (Bamboo sticks? Seriously?)
16) yes, agreed....the Soviet Union cancelling a non-aggression treaty from April 1941, and invading Manchuria (with Korea expected to follow after that)
These are just the top long-term reasons for the decisions to surrender.
The nukes were just the excuse Japanese leadership needed to cover up their own failures, even blaming the US as fighting an unfair war against civilians (read Hirohito's surrender statement to the Japanese people). It can be filed under "final nail in the coffin".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here is the situation, from a neutral analysis:
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal: a few grams of weed...
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, patrolled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Advocates defending their systemic greed, trying to hide behind "good deeds," are usually easily exposed: they utter fallacies like "defending (superior) Western values", whereas in reality all they are doing is defending the dividers, who operate and instigate from superior positions of power. They think reality disappears if they simply do not address it.
Their own inbuilt bias means they are defending greed in the form of "50% for us" (to quote US strategist Kennan), because what they don't realize is that they were born into a belief system. The main reason why that belief system persisted, was because of the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION or POWER. Nothing else.
This isn't an fallacy in reasoning, or a false premise, or syllogism.
Overwhelmingly, people who are born into the belief system capitalism, will perceive it to be god's gift to mankind. Overwhelmingly, people who are born into the belief system corporatism, will perceive it to be god's gift to mankind. Overwhelmingly, people who are born into the belief system democracy, will perceive it to be god's gift to mankind.
All belief systems, mainly persists because advocates are born into the belief system (observation) or have been coddled into believing in it being superior as they grew up.
They are defending "greed" in the form of "50% for us" (or variations of that), for the minority, and that this minority of the world which is based in the USA or collective West, 12% of the world, has the right to rule over the rest of the world, by division.
Greed can be proven to be the MOTIVATION of the top tiers, even if not necessarily by all who live in such systems, and it can be corroborated by observation, a primary source of information.
--------------------------------------------------------
Most people think they are logical and reasonable. However most people are not logical, nor are they reasonable, but are usually biased and illogical, and are therefore easily deceived by their own top tiers, who need them as tools to create great gains, usually for those at the tops of the pyramidal shaped structures of POWER (aka "instruments of power").
A technique for exposing such illogical and unreasonable forms of argumentation, is as follows.
1) One asks an open question, or states a commonly held belief/theory. This can be anything on any political topic.
2) One then awaits an answer.
3) If the debater is knowledgeable about history, then the answer will usually be something along the lines of the agreed upon historical narrative. One then poses a counter-question, pending an answer: How do you know that these were the real reasons for the actions/reactions? (political motivation)
4) One awaits the answer, which then exposes exactly how logical and reasonable the debater is.
5) the correct answer to the question posed in 3) is of course something like (logic/reason): "I personally don't know that for a fact today, but that is what we have been told, or what sources say (other human beings individually/group writing something down)..." which is then followed by the currently valid explanation for the question posed.
When you get such an answer, you know that you're dealing with a low single-digit percentage amongst mankind, who is actually a logical thinker.
As far as any other answer, don't bother debating: these "debaters" will slither about, because they wish to reach a certain preconceived outcome. Specifically, try to wiggle their way around answering questions, or avoiding "offending" historical reality, all in defense of the supreme nature of the chosen man-made system they were coddled into following. They do their "premise/criteria hopping" thinking others do not notice how they obfuscate in defense of their man-made systems of greed...
These debaters will simply assume that everything written down is 100% "fact" (note that the word "fact" has a definition). Note that in this regard, one can prove that something was written down (fact), but one cannot prove what was meant with it (theory). They will repeat their historical leaders words, and state these as being "facts." Note, while these strings of "words" can be proven to be facts by sources, the motivations/reasons at the time cannot be known. Current debaters who simply believe another human being, then must also believe or assume that the motivations of such past leaders were pure and unquestionable. When one does that, one bows to authority. If one simply believes that everything written down is a "fact", one bows down to authority, which is a cognitive bias.
The logical thinkers know that ALL historical narratives are merely "theories" or "hypotheses" (which are different definitions), strung together out of a selection of facts & words.
That means, everything everybody "believes" is a theory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mark Twains accounts mean nothing. If he'd gone to Dubai or Riyadh back then, at the same time, he would equally have seen "desolation" and nothing to write home about. In fact, he would only have needed to go to many places in Europe, and the USA, and he would have seen equally horrid and squallid conditions. Slums, depravation were common...
Such eyewitness accounts mean nothing and do not contribute to the current debate, as some commenters here wish to conclude.
It was a sign of the times.
The desolation was situational.
Amazing what technology and money can do. Had the region been given an uninterrupted development, with the same population mix as in say 1910, but the same amount of money and technology as other semi-arid and arid regions, it would have equally blossomed.
This argument of looking at current-day Israel, Australia, or the US semi-arid regions, is in fact a hidden form of "imperialist apologia," making the unstated claim that the "locals" [substandard human] were incapable of mastering their own lives. The unspoken imperialist apologia states that "only the white man/Europeans" were capable of turning desserts into bloom...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and lose is closer to what happened.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please :-)
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels, and any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain, simply needed to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. Once "divided", there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Some examples regarding the theory in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors would offer a foothold in Europe.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have such consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement after 1895, amongst other less "valuable" suitors, was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below). The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises made"...lol
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...lol.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Same with the funding of opposing European leaders and states (for example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, like Henry Ford).
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else, while "eating popcorn and chips"...
1
-
Under the new Trump admin of Neocon imperialists, the USA will pull out of NATO and leave the EU like "Uriah" on the frontlines, to face Russia by themselves.
Read the strategy: it is more than 2,000 years old, but Europeans still don't get that the USA is "not your friend" (loosely quoting Henry Kissinger). There will be sufficient numbers of Americans cheering and banner waving the resulting "just in isolation"-narrative. Chanting their "Let those European warmongers fight again, nothing to do with me..."-slogans. Just like there will always be sufficient numbers of Americans to cheer and banner wave for almost ANY strategy and practically ANY narrative. Don't subvert your own safety to the American people. They are as clueless as everybody else with regards to geopolitics and grand strategy. Don't enshrine your own future to self-centred people who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag, yet they strut around as if the entire world owes them something. Also do not rely on the "sane half" of American citizens to "save you," for they are as powerless against their own government, as YOU are against yours. All equally distracted by own problems, ignorant of world affairs, indifferent to world affairs, or simply complacent when their state chooses yet more war in eternal cycles of "yet more war" these past 250 years.
The war in the Ukraine is to a great extent a war of Washington DC's own making. Let's not forget that the current Trump admin, was the past Trump admin (2017-2021) while the encroaching/encircling of Russia/China was continuously implemented, thereby creating DIVISION in Europe/Eurasia. Whatever POTUS rules the WH, is completely irrelevant, because the standing grand strategy and geopolitical policy which has historically given the ruling classes their wealth, is regardless of who is the figurehead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariettadechavez6144 Here is the past.
What does it tell you about the present?
So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States). Set up everybody against everybody else.
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule.
Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating families. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Never a "price tag" for own actions.
Right?
WRONG
Brits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
The "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "special relationship BFFs" had stolen all their most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends".
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring": Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world".
And after the war ended?
They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "new temporary divide-and-rule best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946). Did Washington DC ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on, incl. high-tech jet technology, in an effort to save the Empire if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not. Washington DC needed a junior partner, not an equal...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
The history of the British Empire: Hop over here for a temporary advantage one time, then hop over there for a temporary advantage another time. Hop, hop, hop...into extinction. In 1945, there was nobody left to "hop onto".
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course GB would not stay out of any continental war which endangered their own grip on continental affairs.
Unlike their government, who aimed to involve itself in any continental war, regardless of who fired the first shots, or why it started, most British civilians didn't want to become involved in a great war on the continent.
Of course, London already knew this.
That meant that in the leadup to WW1 London (the state) had a little problem:
Which was that they (the state) had already determined that Germany was the rival in peace/enemy in war, but "the people" of GB didn't despise/hate the Germans (the people) but their own "allies", the Russians and French, the traditional imperialist rivals, whom they had fought against for centuries, and were firmly ingrained as "enemies" in the belief system of the people who lived in the UK around the turn of the century (around 1900).
And so "poor little Belgium" was born.
Of course it was a propaganda tool, set up after the Napoleonic Wars to protect "poor little (still in single states/kingdoms) Germans" from "nasty nasty France"...
France was beaten in 1871, and Germany (in a rock-solid Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary) was now the "power" which needed to be "balanced out"...in peace as well as in war.
The propaganda simply did the 180˚ about turn mind-control trick :-)
"Friends" one day.
"Enemies" the next...
Right or wrong?
London didn't care.
The policy came first, and the truth had to be bent to fit the policy.
Of course the above comment is no excuse for invading neutrals.
It just goes to show how "wrongs" add up.
Adding up "wrongs" don't create "rights".
It just leads to what the Bible calls "sowing seeds", which all have to "reap" at some point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidhill2444 Why should I feel hurt? I'm not a snowflake :-)
Just when I hear bs, I'll call it out.
Because to anybody even halfway informed, would know that throughout history, gender has been fluid. Joan of Arc proves for example. Remember her? The woman who didn't want to be "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" even though society and the rulers expected it of her?
She wanted to be a soldier.
Did you know that "men were women" and "women were men" in literally all cultures throughout history?
It is in fact during the 1,000 years or so of Christian dictatorial rule that it turned "abnormal", as the Catholic church burned people alive they deemed "witches" (basically, everybody who didnt bow to the dogma of the church, or literally the most extreme form of dictatorship you can imagine).
So.
Today.
As some say those "feminazis with their short cut hair, in-your-face" with their logic.
I once saw one, confronted by tatooed wannabe tough guy with some tough slogans. It turned out she served, and the first thing she said to him was "I'm in the military, defending your right to insult me".
Precious.
The debate was over.
Just accept people the way they are, as foreseen by the Declaration of Independence: the unalienable right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One cannot solve problems, if nobody knows what the problem is.
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Thoughtflux Where did I write that? Oh, right... nowhere...
Hamas, just like every single "terrorist" organisation ever, at any point in history ever, in any geographical location ever, by any religion ever, are always an effect of oppression.
The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they created themselves with own previous political actions, as terrorists...
Terrorism/Freedom fighting (POV) is always an effect not a cause.
If you live in the west, then you (personally), or your parents, grandparents or previous generations have never ever ever fought anybody your own leaders have not personally set you up against.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Advice for the inhabitants of Greenland.
When your new "friends" come, please, please bow down and smile along, just like Hawaiians did 150 years ago (post-1850s). Then, you'll the be "good people," on the crucial "right side of history." Don't be naughty like the islanders of Puerto Rico 100 years ago and create resistance movements. Remember, when the money elites come from major US and other cities, to buy up and OWN everything around you, try not to be obstinate. Just give up all your prime ancestral lands to these outsiders and multi-national corporations, and don't resist.
Dear Greenlanders, for inside these two "histories" (Hawaii, Puerto Rico) you can see your future which will rhyme, when your "friends" arrive on your shores with their shareholder "meets & greets" and the political "grips & grabs" for the cameras, for the adoring crowds back home. In 10, 20, or 30 years' time, forget about an affordable health insurance, 'cos think about the bright side: you'll have McDonalds on every corner, and Red Dye 40 poisoning your kids. Laws? Hahahaaa... Who needs laws, if you got "guns and freedom baby".
When they come to your shores, because "it's all legal now, cos we made the rules", they are not going to "see" what you lost, but they will concentrate on what they themselves can GAIN, and history will rhyme.
Dear Greenlanders. So you think you have a European strong big brother protecting you? Think again, because so did Hawaiians (British Empire), before all the "friends" came with their super dealmakers (see The Great Rapprochement/1895, as "friends" simply made deals at faraway green tables, and YOU were the one sold out).
Oh, and dear Greenlanders, don't go on the wrong track and think "capitalism," promises made, and signed agreements are actually important. See the histories of the First Nations of North America and their 350 signed accords... or the artificially created "Panama" as exemplary. A hundred years ago, the minor powers in Colombia dared thinking they could determine the price tag themselves, at a time they were still called "Colombians". Now, they are not "Colombians" anymore and today there are countless American imperialist voices all over the internet already loudly complaining how they want "their" canal "back", and there are more than sufficient voices from the mommy's basements actually thinking "he" built it, or "he" paid for it...
And when they set out imperialist/militarist Smedley-Butler-style just remember that systemically (grand strategy/geopolitics) nobody cares.
You are the game to these people.
They don't care about you.
Your future on their marching route, depends on how you resist.
What they care about, is what is UNDER your feet, as resources or the strategic location on the map.
It's about MONEY and POWER and LAND. This story will rhyme eternally whilst the MSM sings the tune of "justice" and "freedom".
Today, many Americans stuck in their daily grind ask themselves why all these US dollars are being globally spread so copiously all over the world as they personally struggle to cope, whilst their government/elites are funding dictators and democracies alike, funding peace and war at the same time, funding corruption with one hand while fighting it with the other, paying for destruction over there and reconstruction somewhere else. All they have to do is read their history. It was never different at any point in history. Because the elites playing global divide-and-rule comes with a "price tag": YOU.
Victorian Era Brits should know. They also wallowed in poverty, as their Empire "ruled the world" from a position of power, with division, and their rulers did the same.
Dear Greenlanders.
The future of Greenland is the past of Hawaii.
Imperialism never ended.
Read the books on strategy and the allegories about power, and read them as INTENDED, not as somebody interprets them FOR you...
Machiavelli stated that it is the "princes" (connected to the lands, often hereditary gatekeepers) who actually cared about a region, because these regions were the centers of their own "insider" wealth/power. But when the "mercenaries" (foreigners, vested interests) arrive, as foreigners who are in it only for the profit/gain, that is when entire regions are dragged down in circles of international corruption. When the "mercenaries" of international hedge funds, mining companies, foreign armies, foreign-approved politicians, and other examples of ivory towers ("revolving doors" models of power) step in and build up, you will not rid yourself of these (mostly) outsiders easily again.
They covet thy land and its resources, and will get it. A tale as old as the Bible. Esau and Jacob is of course a cautionary tale to beware of brothers who come to you with a GIFT which has morphed over time and now means "winning means everything". Note that in this biblical "tale" about eternal deceit and "cheating own brothers out of their inheritance", that the deceiver is the hero of the story. Those who end up with the RICHES under your feet, are the heroes. The deceiver's name and slimy ways continue. Esau the inheritor and his father's favourite, as a name has sorta died out. Just remember, wherever you live, that you just a "dog" in a "manger" (Churchill), and that the RESOURCES intended to be passed onto you as natural inheritance, belong to the OUTSIDERS, in the OUTSIDERS heads, and according to the strategies of these OUTSIDERS. The "smooth talking good guy", the spiffy clean deceiver, scamming his own brother, whilst arguing like a woman creating division within unity and creating the BLACK LEGEND of his brother (the "bad guy"), is the "hero" of history. Very telling indeed.
Dear Greenlanders. You might not like your current status quo as European/Danish territory. The "game" for CONTROL already started a dozen years ago as "history" rhyming. Your future is the past of Hawaii, whose history of foreign domination and CONTROL (divide-and-rule) started as foreign meddling around the 1850s, in slow methodical steps, and with gathering momentum following the 1890's. Once the locusts of capitalism have grazed everything off so these stakeholders benefit themselves and global shareholders far away, then you might just think back about the proverb by the Cree nation (attr.): “Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money.”
1
-
1
-
The American...cough , cough... "standard of living"...
Well, I guess that one hell of way to sugar-coat your statistics until the desired outcome matches the intended message.....ROTFL...
From Investopedia...
"An Example of a Living Standard Measure
One measure of standard of living is the United Nations' Human Development Index (HDI), which scores 189 countries based on factors including life expectancy at birth, education, and income per capita. As of 2018, the countries with the five highest HDI scores are Norway (0.953), Switzerland (0.944), Australia (0.939), Ireland (0.938), and Germany (0.936). Conversely, the countries with the five lowest 2018 HDI scores are Niger (0.354), Central African Republic (0.367), South Sudan (0.388), Chad (0.404) and Burundi (0.417), although Syria, Libya, and Yemen experienced the most dramatic decreases in living standard."
The USA doesn't even make the Top 5.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games...
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the playground during the Cold War. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers...
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide-and-rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide-and-rule games on their neighbours.
Forget nukes. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life..."and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a system divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide-and-rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) against each other. It is how divide-and-rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great divider. It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Anglosphere...
Your nations have never fought anybody the own overlords had not previously created first with the own policies.
Your own dear leaders and and their capitalist/corporatism means and ways, employing little minions, and their attempts to CONTROL everything to their own advantage, is a root cause of all evil. And they did it all by themselves. Nobody put a gun on their chests, and the intention to "sit on the fence" (strategy) from a position of impunity, while paying others to do their work, for the gains of these overlords...
Your people (as a collective) never protected anyone else on the planet unless it was useful to the own expansion or own interests. Your nation (collective) never defended anybody unless it served the own beneficial purpose. Your overlords never created states by drawing lines on the map, or introduced humanitarian improvements anywhere on the planet, unless it was also FIRST useful for the own gain. It does not matter what YOU have been led to believe is your "history," how you choose to distort narratives by skewing the timeline, or simply ....oops "forgetting" to add vital data.
You (today/personally), your family, your ancestors never fought anybody your own historical leaders did not greatly aid in setting up FIRST. Never fought any war these overlords did not lay the foundation for FIRST. And that incl. socialism/communism which originated in the 19th Century as a bottom up movement DUE TO the observed globally operating systems of gain, power, and inhumane exploitation generally and collective falling under the terms imperialism/colonialism in conjunction with capitalism (incl. but not limited to, your very own American Century/British Empire which also practiced it). Even the slowly emerging forces of socialism/communism was an effect of previous wrongful OWN deeds, too numerous to mention, and therefore socialism/communism was NOT a "cause," but an effect of own actions. All the terrorists your system historically fought, ever, did not suddenly appear out of the blue. Nobody wakes up one morning, with sudden aspirations of becoming a career terrorist. Name me ONE terrorist organization, that was not created out of OWN previous meddling or imperialist actions? Name just ONE thing the people around you are not constantly whining about (refugees, migrant crises, invasive government, divisive politicians) that was not caused by your own leaders? Just ONE.
Fascism, and all the other "-isms" everybody is always whining about, came about as an effect of WW1 and immediate post-WW1 political tensions operating in the vacuum of the receding pre-WW1 order.
Cause.
Effect.
It does not matter if you personally understand causality, or not.
1
-
History will rhyme. THRICE.
If anybody wishes to know what is in store for the EU and other American "best fwiends" after 2025, look back in history to what the USA did to the British Empire after WW2, when it was bankrupt and weak. The first victim of the American Century was not as proclaimed and the generally accepted narrative of history, that "it was the USSR" (sic./Truman Doctrine, "Iron Curtain"-narrative), but the British Empire, which was cut down to size turning London from "British lion" to "poodle" in around 25 years, using economic warfare.
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise." [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500. My shoutout to the original author whose site is since removed.]
This is divide-and-rule.
A blueprint for how one Albion deceived the other, to become the "next Albion".
The transfer of power from one control freak system to the next.
Pure unfettered opportunism, via steered and implemented division of others for own gain..
After 1945 the USA used its own might as hammer and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). By 1945, Stalin (Moscow), smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and witnessing the collapse of virtually every other European power, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2. It was overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has self-centred imperialist aims and goals , one eventually destroys all alternatives, and when you try to defend everything, you'll eventually "defend nothing" (Friedrich the Great, re. a false allocation of clout and resources, in grand strategy and geopolitics).
That was preceded in geopolitics by a Washington DC shift away from a global non-interventionalist stand on international relations, towards a more active engagement in world affairs and global expansion which incl. European affairs (the study of "Offensive Realism") which started around the year 1900, symbolized by the Spanish-American War (1898). Something London lords happily signed up for with the "Great Rapprochement" (aligned and associated "friends only, no obligations", in the "interests"-reality of imperialism). London must have thought the good times were coming, alongside their "new friends" and making the rules for everybody else. Two Albions getting happily engaged...
What could possibly go wrong putting your trust in Washington DC?
AROUND THE YEAR 2000
In reality, your "friends" in capitalism over the Atlantic can't wait for history to repeat, to wait until Europe is weak again, exhausted from war, down in power, ready for the carving knives of OUTSIDE imperialism, all by the "friends" who are standing by and standing down to enter and benefit from the division and destruction they themselves greatly contributed to after the 1990s.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The humiliation of Great Britain and France, was directly according to "plan." The strategy of weakening the Europeans, and make them bow down to the Grand Strategy behind...
Eisenhower was merely doing what all US Presidents did, long before that. Weakening Europe, whichever way possible.
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), (§§§footnote) the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed." SOURCE: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive
US strategist in these think tanks lay out the scheme of what was going to be the new post-war reality, as a "Grand Area" as an almost exclusive "back yard", and under their "natural rights" for the USA to control. Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function. The more industrial countries were to be guided as "great workshops". Those who had demonstrated their prowess during the war (would now be working under US supervision/finance). More, undeveloped regions were to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial centers, as a memo put it. They were to be "exploited" for the reconstruction of Europe (The references are to South America and Africa, but the points are general.)
To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this." Note, all words in quotes were actual words used IN THIS OFFICIAL US DOCUMENT, and the article and its quoted sources can all be downloaded for free, from the www, and using these key words provided for your search engine.
---------------------------------
After around 1940, ... (quote/wiki) "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe ..."
That was "the plan".
To humiliate and force the remaining European powers, weakened (by WW2), to bow down and comply.
The USA in the west, Russia in the east, and whatever was left of Europe after WW2, to be carved up and squeezed in between as spheres of influence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I just came here from a comments section from a video praising "hero Trump" for his ...ahem... "efforts to stop the war", with hundreds and hundreds of fools arguing about the effects, and their priorities, and fingers pointing here and there.... but maybe 1 or 2 mentioning the causes of this war which started 30 years ago.
Trump of course, during his first term (2017-2021), did not stop the "marching empire" [systemic expansion], so he was just another POTUS, an imperialist, just like all the others before...
-----------------------
Why is anybody surprised? The USA instigates wars or does not avoid them (even if possible), or lays the foundations for crises it aims to profit from using the divide-and-rule technique in IR. It is also a divide-and-rule Mecca for the ultra-rich who practice it on the domestic tier also.
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided people are easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy. Lies (incl. "lying by omission") is an integral part of the strategy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics.
The real question that should be asked, and therefore the premise of any debate is: Was it wise at the time?
To which the simple answer is "no".
They ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
"Justifiable" is a bs premise for any debate concerning war.
What really counts is smart leadership, and Brits sucked at geopolitics/geostratey, and lost their Empire....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: "Divide and rule, the politician cries; unite and lead, is watchword of the wise."
Divide and rule, the USA/collective West cries; unite and lead, is watchword of the resistance.
Beware of the dividers.
They will come with their promises and allures. When these dividers come with lies, death, and misery, they are always the "good" liars, thieves, and killers in the own "(his)stories" they tell themselves. When the resistance finally re-acts, and lies, steals, and kills as a result of the previous actions of the outside dividers, then this is (quote) "evil."
1
-
1
-
@Doveton Sturdee
You seem to be a regular "defender" of the British Empire here.
Read below please.
All you'll have to do is to figure out how and where "Mers el Kebir" fits into the big picture reality:
Today, Washington DC intends to keep its role as "alpha" of the world, gained from European empires after WW2.
There is even an "insider joke" about NATO, which is that it intends to "keep Germany down, and Russia out".
Effect: Washington DC/USA stays the master of European affairs.
NATO is now just another tool in the toolbox of "divide and conquer", going back all the way to the 18th century, when the USA was first established.
European powers failed to morph NATO into a more suitable system following the end of the Cold War "around the year 2000".
A system including Russia and all post-Warsaw Pact nations equally, in a comprehensive security agreement.
Note always: What did not happen.
Of course a comprehensive security agreement without ...ahem...."parallel tweaties", and a "morphed NATO" into a strong arm of international law = power to actually follow up with punch if "the law" is broken.
A new system under which laws, codified by the international community, actually formed a basis of cooperation, not "muh interests you know..."
US leaders realized that the key to their own superiority lay in dividing Europeans any which way they could (note, "Europe" is a geographical term, and includes Russia).
Sowing dissent.
The "freedom and democracy"-argument, backed up by coffers filled to the brim with "slush fund" money...
Sow dissent.
Irrelevant of whether the actors come with good intentions, or are even aware of what they are ultimately doing: Divide and Rule/Conquer, for a different system.
"In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution had been defeated and its leaders, who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams, were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile by the Stadtholder, William V, Prince of Orange, in league with the old oligarchs and with the intervention of Britain and Prussia. Adams and Jefferson agonized for the Dutch Patriots, but felt that they had been betrayed by their own excesses as well as by their Bourbon ally. The fact that France, pledged to the Patriots, had not lifted a finger in their support offered a melancholy lesson for the United States..."
(from ugapress manifoldapp)
Who doth even recognize the "freedom and democracy"-argument here?
Irrelevant of intentions, it fits the definition of "sowing dissent" in an existing "system".
Irrelevant of whether the reader has any personal preferences: the actions fit words, and words have definitions, which are a strategy. Divide others, to avoid unity.
Of course, at this early stage the USA had no way to implement "rule" in any form.
A divided Europe suited Washington DC just fine, because should Europe ever unite, it could pose an existential threat to the new USA...
The more division in Europe, the better.
Support whatever divides.
Oppose whatever unites.
For the own side: the more unity in North America, the better.
The "rule"-part over Europe would have to wait...
And in North America, other...ahem..."systems" would have to go too (American Civil War, all about "poor slaves" we are told...)
So much for the New World.
In the leadup to WW1, London thought they were clever, and that they could gain by dividing everybody else in Europe. "Divide and rule/conquer": note that "rule" has different meanings, and one meaning of the word is simply to "dictate terms" to others, based on an advantage in power.
To make it clear, London never intended "direct rule" over any continental country or adversary, because they were to weak for that, but rather to divide continental powers and thereby gain the advantage of dictating terms in case of negotiations, crisis, or wars.
What "the lords" didn't seem to notice, was that while they were "ruling" over the continent, based on a geographical advantage, somebody else was playing the same game with them.
It was Washington DC, playing "divide and conquer/rule" with Europe, and to the leaders here, GB was simply a part of "Europe" (geographical entity).
There are two ways to conquer people: one is by war, the other by debt, which is exactly what Washington DC did.
After a few hundred years, the game had simply been flipped 180 degrees.
Around 1900 there were "two systems" in Europe: one "librul" (lol), one "conservative"...
The "dividers and rulers" could play to their heart's content...
And around 2000 "history rhymed", and nobody noticed...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One side, is setting the stage for war.
"Somebody" is in the way, but I won't mention names :-)
Somebody needs a justification and a "WMD"- reason to invade...
Somebody is desperately trying to point the finger elsewhere, hoping dumb people won't notice....
Let's look at a historical parallel:
All throughout the 1920s and 1930s, there was this dangerous ideology which threatened us all…
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Wahhabism,-terrorism-and-the-'confessions'-of-a-Saudi-prince-43465.html
And then Dachau and other slave camps. What kind of people would enslave their neighbors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Saudi_Arabia
And, oh...you know that „burning books“- thingy…
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall09/jawad_n/traditionalmedia.html
And racism...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Saudi_Arabia
Purges and taking out rivals was a sure indication that Hitler was getting rid of the internal opposition to his agenda. Obviously, everybody knows where that goes...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-crackdown-corruption-or-critics/
Of course, even during the Olympics, he was just presenting his best side, cheating us with a few cheap tricks. Obviously, these „cheap propaganda tricks“ were only created to fool the international world. So obvious, right?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-women-driving.html
He went about, intimidating little neighboring states….
https://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-threatens-block-qatar-s-land-sea-borders-541971.html
The Spanish Civil War and the Legion Condor was simply „honing skills“. Obviously just training to attack somebody else. Why didn‘t anybody stop him?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian%E2%80%93led_intervention_in_Yemen
And that increase in arms was a dead giveaway. Honestly! Let‘s invade now, before they get even stronger…
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/05/20/donald-trump-signs-tremendous-deal-with-saudi-arabia/
And remember what happened when the world started to criticise the aggression? Yes, he left the League of Nations, because it was bad.
Of course, the ENTIRE world was wrong, not the own actions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_United_Nations
And when he makes "new friends" with Stalin, he's only looking for a free back. Obviously, he'll come back for Stalin later. Didn't they read Mein Kampf?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/israel-saudi-arabia-relations/
Oh, and did I mention war?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/07/the-first-saudi-iranian-war-will-be-an-even-fight/
Quattar and Al Jazeera is in the way....
They don't follow orders...
They might report the truth....
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ThatOpalGuy Meddling = divide-and-rule.
A long history of divide-and-rule/conquer.
The people of West Asia (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous outsiders have made use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easy to divide people. First Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give a weak mind money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be used invisibly in times of peace, AND in times of crisis and war equaly.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At 25;30 mins "..but how much stronger would Germany have been?'.
That is not a rhetorical question.
The objective of the rhetorical question is to place an opposing view under pressure, by asking a question to which would reveal a weakness in the opposing side's logic.
In this case, it not a successful example of rhetoric, because the answer is simple.
German production was limited by resources.
No Bauxite = no aluminum
No Nickel = no armor
No Chrome = no high grade steel
No tungsten = no tools
No rubber = no tires for trucks
No oil = no mobile warfare.
German production would NOT have been significantly higher, because they did not have the raw materials, or access to those places in the world which had these resources. Anybody who states that 'German production would have been higher', should also follow it up with a full assessment of where the extra raw materials for a higher production would have come from, and more importantly, the oil to fuel the weapons of warfare (tanks, planes, artillery tractors, etc.)
German production came to a standstill around early 1945, when ground forces cut off the last remaining connections to the sources of raw materials.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mitchrichards1532 It might have been wise to "balance powers" in a concert of equals" (see Concert of Europe) at a time when wars were limited in scope in the first half of the 19th Century.
During the era of mass-armies of millions of men that came with the population explosion late-19th Century, it was in fact the opposite.
It was not wise to try to play "balancing games", because (to quote Churchill "wars would end in the ruin of the vanquished and the dislocation of the winners").
And that is what happened.
At a time of changes taking place (technology shrinking the world), incorporating the USA into the "balance of power" is where London failed.
The American Century fanboys in Washington DC had no intention to become a part of London's idea of "balance of power".
Back then, London's policy was foolish.
It pitted itself against the most powerful continental power/alliance, meaning that if it came to war others would benefit by sitting on the fence to pick up the pieces in case it came to war.
In case Washington (today) wishes to play the same foolish game with China, the same will happen. Not that there will be a war (hopefully not), but if there is a lasting trade war, both will lose, and those "sitting on the fence" will gain: Russia, India, and the EU (in case they can manage to stick together).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dresden was no coincidence nor an effect.
It was a cause, decided loooooong before WW2.
"Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries.
Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Beware of the divide-and-rule technique.
It is the "mother if all harm" in history, due to what it causes as effects.
The "dividers" must know what they sow, but don't care.
Globalism/imperialism created all of its own enemies. Everything the USA /collective West is fighting/combatting these days, they created themselves in the past.
------------------------
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it is the only strategy which can be invisibly employed in times of war, and in times of peace.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@obiwaankenobi1945 LOL...
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that "divide and rule/conquer" was at the heart of these policies.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative.
It was a policy.
It had little to do with "fighting bad guys".
After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose...
The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War).
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
Even today, one in every 3 British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".
There are still some 15-20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was "standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo great.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" without a treaty or signature on the dotted line.
What could possibly go wrong?
I assume Machiavelli was rolling in his grave...
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no Empire.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable alpha bark to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey.
There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games.
1
-
1
-
Q: Which war started with a lie?
A: ALL of them...
Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:
For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Let’s look at US meddling in THEIR world, and Google "wars for oil", shall we?
Or, simply ask yourself the question.
As a "life, liberty and happiness" kinda guy, would you personally have accepted even half the sh*t your leaders have imposed onto others over the past century or so?
Nope...probably not...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Question: "What does the Bible say about hypocrisy?"
Answer: In essence, “hypocrisy” refers to the act of claiming to believe something but acting in a different manner. The word is derived from the Greek term for “actor”—literally, “one who wears a mask”—in other words, someone who pretends to be what he is not.
The Bible calls hypocrisy a sin. There are two forms hypocrisy can take: that of professing belief in something and then acting in a manner contrary to that belief, and that of looking down on others when we ourselves are flawed.
The prophet Isaiah condemned the hypocrisy of his day: “The Lord says, ‘These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men’” (Isaiah 29:13). Centuries later, Jesus quoted this verse, aiming the same condemnation at the religious leaders of His day (Matthew 15:8-9). John the Baptist refused to give hypocrites a pass, telling them to produce “fruits worthy of repentance” (Luke 3:8). Jesus took an equally staunch stand against sanctimony—He called hypocrites “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (Matthew 7:15), “whitewashed tombs” (Matthew 23:27), “snakes,” and “brood of vipers” (Matthew 23:33).
We cannot say we love God if we do not love our brothers (1 John 2:9). Love must be “without hypocrisy” (Romans 12:9, NKJV). A hypocrite may look righteous on the outside, but it is a façade. True righteousness comes from the inner transformation of the Holy Spirit not an external conformity to a set of rules (Matthew 23:5; 2 Corinthians 3:8).
Jesus addressed the other form of hypocrisy in the Sermon on the Mount: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:3-5). Jesus is not teaching against discernment or helping others overcome sin; instead, He is telling us not be so prideful and convinced of our own goodness that we criticize others from a position of self-righteousness
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Daily_Bassist First of all, do you have evidence to prove that "tens of millions...want to kill us"?
A link to back up your numbers would do.
Secondly, in case there are some people who hate America, then maybe it is the fact that you're constantly killing people, destroying their homes, or causing endless suffering that has something to do with it?
"Since World War II, during a supposed golden age of peace, the United States military has killed or helped kill some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 84 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. The United States is responsible for the deaths of 5 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and over 1 million just since 2003 in Iraq.
Since 2001, the United States has been systematically destroying a region of the globe, bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, not to mention the Philippines. The United States has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces in three-quarters of them."
I'm sure Jesus would not be amused....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The cover-ups of the American century go deep.
George Kennan was one of the prototype globalists, back in the 1940s. Of course, previously morphed out of internationalism in combination with imperialism. The proven "good cop/bad cop"-game, for example as played on Colombia when the USA wanted the Panama Canal. First the "good cops" (internationalist) come with the "carrot" of deals and co-operation. If that doesn't work, the "bad cop" (imperialist) comes with the "stick" (Marines) of threats and the regime change operations or simply invasion. Nothing has changed yet in 100 years, incl. their favourite techniques of power: the divide-and-rule strategy of power, as comprehensive set of tools. This set of tools included men like George Kennan, a prototype globalist "good cop" who appeared, miraculously out of the blue just in time as WW2 was playing out in Europe...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."[end of]
America's allies and foes in Europe burned in order to achieve primacy for the USA after 1945, are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues. It is how divide and rule is implemented. Set up European and Eurasian nations against each other in a (quote) "pattern of relationships."
Look for the patterns, and see the technique.
Internationalism has morphed into globalism, and imperialism never died.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Brzinzki (Grand Chessboard, 1997) with regards to what they wished to avoid.
Your "friends" are scam artist pushing the biggest con the world has ever seen: Divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
12:21
The Treaty of Versailles was divide-and-rule.
THE PATTERN ALWAYS RHYMES
Europe = Between the sea and the sea (Baltic and Mediterranean) and should have included ALL peoples who lived here. The barriers to unity were in the brain (divisive tribal thinking), to the detriment of all when the outside "dividers" came. The lines in the sands were historically drawn by outsiders/empires to achieve gain, and are currently USED by empires to perpetuate gain for the own systems. The DIVIDED locals are led like lambs to the slaughter. Blind with regards to their own roles in the divide-and-rule strategy of outside powers.
Historically, who gained from DIVISION these past 125 years?
Who would have gained from a fair UNITY within Europe, when the faraway "empires" came for them after WW1? Correct answer: the people who lived there.
After WW1 the British- and French empires used the divide-and-rule technique, to carve up Central Europeans and divide all the people living here. The lines were drawn to carve up the historical centers of power and human resources, strategically valuable territory, and to AVOID one power from gaining too much of the POWER which these reserves would afford them.
Treaty of Versailles = Divide and rule of and over neighbours (Europe/Eurasia), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbours whom the dividers wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weakened local systems who "lost the war" and which they wished to create top down). After WW1 European leaders who did not understand the logic of Chesterton's fence, and destroyed what they did not understand (European Balance of Power, as per Concert of Europe, 1815). Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such systemic "line drawing" agreements/accords?
Trying to explain how systems use strategies of power to people blinded by the hubris and jingoism of the histories, and browbeaten into subversiveness by their own ideology or idealism is a waste of time. Like trying to explain what color looks like to somebody who is blind, or what classical music sounds like, to somebody who is deaf. These people would rather end up in the muddy trench, deceived into going there by their own leaders...
THE PATTERN ALWAYS RHYMES
Arabian Peninsula = Between the sea and the sea (Mediterranean/Indian Oceans) and should have included ALL peoples who lived here. The barriers to unity were in the brain (divisive tribal thinking), to the detriment of all when the outside "dividers" came. The lines in the sands were historically drawn by outsiders/empires to achieve gain, and are currently USED by empires to perpetuate gain for the own systems. The DIVIDED locals are led like lambs to the slaughter. Blind with regards to their own roles in the divide-and-rule strategy of outside powers.
Historically, who gained from DIVISION these past 125 years?
Who would have gained from a fair UNITY on the Arabian Peninsula, when the faraway "empires" came for them after WW1? Correct answer: the people who lived there.
After WW1 the British- and French empires used the divide-and-rule technique, to carve up the Arabian Peninsula and subvert all the people living here. The lines were drawn to carve up the oil resources, strategically valuable territory, and to AVOID one power from gaining too much of the POWER which these reserves would afford them.
The "divide-and-rule strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it creates ingroups of "empire fans" who gain and can become very very rich, even as millions of others suffer.
Zoom into the present...
THE PATTERN ALWAYS RHYMES
Abrahamic Accords = Divide and rule of and over direct neighbours (Arabian Peninsula), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbours whom they wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weaker local systems). Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such agreements/accords? The leaders of West Asia are all "divided loyalties" as long as they bow down to outside interests and value their own vested interests before the interests of the entire region (oil resources which had been turned into US/EU/Swiss assets for a few chosen ones over the span of 50 years, or the "my precious borders"-mentality of ideologues, past the well-being of the majority of the own peoples).
One of the biggest misconceptions of history is the ability of the ideologically/systemically indoctrinated individual to view themselves as unique when part of a bigger group, whereas as a general rule their own histories rhyme with other historical events, based on the systemic analysis. The will to keep the own systems APART from their neighbours (divided by ideology and rulings) always backfires, when one is no longer "King of the Mountain" (strategy of power). By the time everything implodes, the rulers/dividers are long gone, having previously brought their own wealth and families to safe havens (aka "tax havens"). This subsection of history will repeat, again and again.
Don't make the same mistake. Do not fight for division and empty promises by outsiders. YOUR "horizons" are given to you by the texts in your own history books, which tend or intend to LIMIT your horizon, not open it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
British and French leaders went to Versailles under the rather childish illusion that the SU and Germany would stay weak forever and ever and ever....
They ignored the big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
Sad.
1
-
So British leaders bombed the British Empire into ruin.
Apparently, sending "bbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"-Lancs around to "flatten Germany", was a too expensive burden for a failing empire to shoulder...
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
How'd that work out after WW2?
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
Sorreeee. That's what happens when you make the wrong "fwiends".
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Nice exchange.
The current generation of kiddies can chant "Bomber Harris do it again" for all eternity.
It only cost the Brits their Empire...
Seems like a fair deal.
1
-
We in the west shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win). In other words, just as much Lend-Lease as needed, but not enough for the commie to storm all the way into Central Europe.
We should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary to aid D-Day, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why shouldn't it have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion?
Because we owed Stalin nothing.
Not single Jeep and not a single Studebaker truck, carrying commies into Central Europe by the millions.
Not a single drop of blood.
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
So our leaders sacrificed own soldiers, own resources, and millions of own dollars, to hand over half the world to the commies. Only to end up fighting them in the other half for the next fifty years. Korea, Vietnam, the ME. Thousands of body bags of "our boys".
Rather silly to "help Stalin" don't you think, if we could have just let them "slug it out to utter exhaustion, and then march over the ruins, a fate Stalin had intended for us...
Ah...smart leaders.
Too bad we didn't have any...
There was Arthur "2 working brain cells" Harris who was "just following orders".
And Sir Charles "Mesopotamian kiddie terror bomber" Portal.
And, last but not least Winston "gas the Arab, Indians are beasts" Churchill, who thought that "flattening Germany" would leave a "Big Three" to rule the world. LOL.
Last time I checked, the Cold War had a "Big Two" and the totally bankrupt British Empire was squeezed out of existence.
Ah well.
Too bad.
Actions have consequences...
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's always never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose.
Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever thought about what such a policy meant?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be written off...
It means these slimy deceitful Albions expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
To hell with them.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy..."
Me: ROFL
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary lines drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that "faraway empires" would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? It looks very interesting. Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies...
How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets they have. Want some..."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up. Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
What happened to China during their "Century of Humiliation," which means that one then already has the template to understand what happened in Europe post-1900 and before. One can use the historical "template" and apply it in the same manner.
What is written about China is how "divide and rule" worked in the past, and still works today. Create or deepen a political problem, and then wait for the little minions benefiting from the outside POWER of imperialism to come asking for "help." Use their "plight" (artificially enhanced) to meddle, or "leverage" (power dynamics) crises into "eternal problems," sit by and do nothing as problems foment into violence, revolutions, and wars, or carry out other forms of privatized interference (corporatism) under government protection, or without. Whatever works, details really REALLY DON'T MATTER. Once "fomented troubles" rise out of hand, claim to "just want peace." Then use the little minions as favorites (favoratism = a technique within the "divide and rule" strategy of power) to destabilize an entire region, steer them against other weaker entities, and/or employ them as instruments of power (the "tools" of power dynamics), or create overseas regions as a staging area far from the home base (the "unsinkable aircraft carriers"/like colonial-era Hong Kong), etc.
Whatever works for the desired region to be divided/conquered or where CONTROL and domination is required for the economic systems of gain.
There is no way that current day Chinese leaders will not have learnt their very own historical lesson, and allow their very own history to repeat/rhyme, and allow such outside meddling in the own systems to gain traction, AGAIN for a second time.
Every nation or state has its own "Never again!"
1
-
1
-
Early re-armament is just as bad as a "too late" start of re-armament.
In case of war, it would leave a state 1) bankrupt, and 2) stuck with tons of outdated weapons (in other words, a disadvantage vs. a state which started later, with a newer generation of weapons).
Ask Stalin.
He found out the hard way what happens to 20,000 outdated tanks, and 15,000 outdated aircraft, if attacked by more modern types (a later generation of weapons).
Only "general distance", "marshal winter", and "private mud" saved the SU in 1941.
1
-
@mikereger1186 Nazi Germany was the aggressor, meaning that they could plan the start of the war. If you are the one "starting" the war, you obviously also know when it starts, and can plan towards it.
The Nazis intended to fight "war on the cheap", always using the arms/resources taken from one victim, towards destroying the next. That way, own resources and manpower could be kept in reserve.
First victim was Czechoslovakia (half in 1938 by treaty aka Munich, half in March 1939 by invasion). Note, this was before WW2 started, and these captured resources were then used in Poland.
Captured Polish/Czech weapons plus plundered economy then used in wrestle down France.
Then, captured Polish/Czech/French/Belgian/British/Dutch arms and economies used in the Balkans and Russia (88 German infantry divs and 4 motorized divs, plus 1 tank division mostly with French equipment).
Throughout all this, German resources were also used of course, but not in such excess as after 1942/43 onwards.
Germany declared it's "Total War" in 1943 only.
GB started theirs in 1939, as soon as the war started.
1
-
1
-
@mikereger1186 Concerning "predicting the future".
Would you have been able to guess (in 1938/39) where a potential future would start?
Why not China?
Why not the commies in Moscow?
Today we should be careful in criticizing past political decisions though, based on hindsight. Today, we can turn to page 434 of our history books, and go "well, we shoulda done that", or "we shouldn't have done that".
Past leaders didn't have that option of course :-)
Bear in mind that London used the rivalries of the continental powers, because its means were limited by reality (financial, industrial limitations). Since GB was an island, with a global empire to protect, obviously the Royal Navy was going to get the lion's share of resources.
The protection of "Empire" (British land forces = army came second) was achieved indirectly, by "balancing out" the continental powers against each other.
Furthermore, the focus on Hitler/Fascism is what IMO is a crude misuse of hindsight. The British Empire had other worries, and only today's hindsight makes it possible to focus on Germany/Fascist powers, and a certain "we shoulda done that"-assertion.
At the time, and correctly so, communism was seen as just as big a threat to the colonial powers, and colonialism in general.
But at the time, say until 1938, Germany was not considered a danger by most leaders. In fact it was simply considered a "tool" to out-balance other continental powers, and an equally rapidly industrialising/re-arming SU.
Communism was aimed at the the colonial power's impoverished masses, and an opposite pole to aggressive communist expansion was felt appropriate.
For further reading, I suggest googling:
- the Communist Manifest
- the Comintern
- Soviet re-armament in the Five Year Plans 1928 and 1933
- soviet Deep Battle/Operations (aka "Blitzkrieg")
- strategic bombers/paratroopers (both offensive weapons systems, not defensive)
- Communist takeover of Mongolia
- The Soviet invasion of China 1934 (Xinjiang)
- The Great Leap/Mao (communist subversive warfare in action, with the display of the "modus operandi" of a possible future for western empires)
- Stalin's "Big Fleet Program", starting 1935 for a Blue Water Navy according to Mahan
Today, we know what GB's leaders could only have assessed back in the 1930s...
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/1950-10-01/china-stalins-grand-strategy
Stalin intended for his particular brand of communism (Stalinism) to rise, and take over one slow step at a time. His expansion, could only come at the expense of western influence.
As an Empire with millions of poor and unsatisfied subjects, to whom communism might seem very appealing, London obviously felt that allowing Germany to rearm as a potential future ally in case Stalin tried something funny, might be forthcoming.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ASIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside systems can "surf in and skim off the profits". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS OR PERSONAL PRIORITIES
European peoples are far to daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive them too, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that they end up thinking everything they do is justified, with "only a few exceptions" in order to seem fair...
Has your nation, or a leader already been "chosen as a favorite son of the West"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have with neighbors aside, or settle them fast, and don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme. Actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples across all borders.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these Western "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU today, for the gain of the outside Western Powers, just like divide and rule sacrificed your grandparents and previous Asian generations during the Era of Imperialism...
------------------------
P.S.: I cannot personally post this message myself too often, since YT autoblocks it as "spam" if I copy and paste it under videos too often. I need YOUR help. In your own interest of safety, please spread this message with regards to the age-old "divide and rule"-strategy of outside (non-Asian) powers. Thank You.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ideologically indoctrinated politicians who lie, and the warriors they incite to fight to spread their ideologies, are the root cause of all evil in the world. One doesn't even have to infer much, since they will tell you straight in your face what they want.
According to the dictionary, an ideology is an organized set of political or economic ideas... for example, "democracy" and "capitalism," both of which are ideologies.
If one tries to list all the ideologically inspired lies and deceptions by politicians who have started/bandwagoned wars to (quote) "make the world safe for democracy" the list will be long and the victims uncountable, because the ideologues don't even bother to count them.
TODAY
It does not want total war, say the ideologues of the USA/collective West, but the capitulation of Russia. I ask you: do you want total war? Do you want it - if necessary - more total and radical than we can even imagine today?
These ideologues have strategized millions of deaths and total ruin emanating from London and Washington DC to spread their ideologies and spheres of influence, and that's just the wars since 1945. Not even to mention those before that. It is futile to try to educate the masses who are going into the trenches about the harmful effects of war. People already know it, but they are powerless against the forces that are leading entire regions into war. These top politicians, who sit in- sinecure comfort in peacetime and have bunkers in wartime, have no intention of bearing the consequences of their decisions.
And the people?
Too ignorant to find out what is going on.
Too indifferent to care about what is taking place in their names.
Too complacent to do anything, even if they find out.
Too arrogant to consider that they might have it all wrong.
1
-
Trump isn't a "hero" in case he achieves peace in the Ukraine, never mind how weird this statement sounds. For all the wrong reasons, the "peace loving" part of the empire is a ploy. Trump is no hero, regardless of whether he achieves peace (temporary breather). He's just a figurehead and "ratchet" for the American Century, just like every other POTUS in history. Some might have been more openly imperialistic, but they all served an expansive empire.
Peace? YES.
Idolatry of any Washington DC/Pentagon actors? No.
The MO has been consistent since 1776: marching onto another powers borders (systemically), also by proxy, then blame those encroached on/encircled if they REact, or blame the proxies if they are "too weak/failures". This recent post-Cold War march started during the 1990s, so even if the Trump admin didn't start the "marching order", fact is he didn't stop it either when he had the opportunity during the first admin (2017-2021).
This can be studied as empirical evidence (observation/map) which makes it clear who was encroaching on/encircling whom, and one should not engage with debaters basing their theories on ideology or feelings, specifically not if the advocate outs himself as dogmatist, prone to committing fallacies in reasoning or resort to cognitive biases. Such people are not interested in outcomes, but wish to make "debates" go around in circles forever, obfuscating, side-lining and finger-pointing in order to avoid the obvious: answering the question "Who started it?"
The current marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s with "carved-up Yugoslavia" being the first victim of divide-and-rule.
Systemic/ideological expansion into:
- Eastern Europe.
- Black Sea/Balkans/Caucasus Region (southern pincer of the marching route)
- Scandinavia/Baltic Sea Region (northern pincer of the marching route)
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. This marching order started in 1776, and first victims were neighbours like First Nations or Mexico, whose territory was desired.
"The US national interest is controlling other countries. So that whatever economic surplus that country is able to generate, is transferred to the US, to US investors, to the US govt & especially to US bond holders." - Prof. Michael Hudson (the "giant vacuum cleaner").
It is today, as it was since 1776.
Fact is that Trump, or any other previous admin, did not stop this "(systemic) slow march".
Nobody owes the government and the Trump admin anything for something the USA started itself based on the undemocratic self-proclaimed idea that it should be, and remain, global hegemony.
Based on the logic of the Golden Rule, which states "not to do to others as one does not wish to be done onto" (strategy of power aka fairness, to avoid escalation), a wise strategy is to find common grounds, reach mutually agreeable accords which all gain from. Even if the current issue is "solved", it does not solve the overriding issue: the expansive aims of the USA, which started in 1776 and never stopped, and the strategy it uses to achieve gains for its top tiers/elites, by pushing proxies ahead of it as "buck catchers" to catch the effects of the advances if something goes wrong. These so-called leaders, mostly people who nobody ever elected, want to be praised for solving the chaos they cause (or not stopped from escalating) with ostentatious theatrics whilst profiteering openly and proudly from the own lies, deception, and strategizing.
Why are we even having all these "debates" and arguments today, with all types of fools and "problem solvers" stepping into the limelight, proliferating themselves? Correct answer: politicians and power players who "do to others," (Golden Rule) creating situations they would cry like babies if "done onto" them (own systems). The worst types of "bunker boy"-style leaders one could wish for. Cause problems, and run for the bunkers if there is a reaction, pushing others in front of them to catch the buck...
Next up: How can the USA withdraw from NATO, cheered along by adoring fans back home, withdrawing the overwhelming part of Europe's nuclear umbrella while blaming the victims, so the setup established since the 1990s continues (US global hegemony/vassalized Europe/weak/divided), and then benefit from the setup of "weakened Europe" somewhere else if Europe doesn't make their peace with Russia FAST?
Foster division.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quiet or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing.
Just claim hero status for the self, and blame everybody else for everything which goes wrong.
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
The USA can gain somewhere else?
Already predicted. Greenland.
(Historical parallel: How the Albion 1.0 gained Cypress by pushing for war between the Three Kaiser League in the wake of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/1879, which can be studied as "Albion template")
Wait for it...
1
-
Today we see many American citizens angry about their rich ruling elite is siphoning off gains of another human being's lifetime hard work?
Everything skyrocketing: insurance premiums, property taxes, levies and surcharges for anything under the sun, HOA fees, coerced tipping on EVERYthing in the "land of the free".
Why are Americans angry?
This is the essence of your global rule, "coming home to roost"....
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a globalist prototype who implemented disparities per strategy. This is not simply a piece of anecdotal evidence, taken out of context, but it can be corroborated by millions of bits of data all confirming that for the 50 years or so after WW2, the USA was the wealthiest country in the world. It was not coincidental, or a matter of working harder than anybody else, or having better people or anything else but a favorable geographical location on the map, meaning it lost less during WW2 than everybody else, and was therefore in the position to exploit this position of power after the war.
Divide-and-rule afforded the USA the "right might" to siphon off global wealth, almost unopposed, for more then 50 years after WW2 while everybody else was down and exhausted.
Now, these same forces of division (capitalism) are "coming home to roost", to siphon Americans off, and now they are angry?
1
-
1
-
1
-
A lot of ancillary and totally irrelavant details.
It was a London policy which made the strongest continental power the default "rival in peace", and the default "enemy in war".
London had 2 chances to correct their faulty reasoning.
One with Wilhelm II, roughly until 1900, until German leaders lost their patience trying to get a mutually beneficial treaty with London.
The 2nd chance, after WW1, while Germany was a democracy.
They blew both chances, and would subsequently lose their Empire.
Because roughly in parallel to Germany on the continent across the English Channel, there was another "new power" rising across the Atlantic, whose position was basically "observe calmly, secure our position, cope with affairs calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, be good at maintaining a low profile, and never claim leadership.”
It was the USA.
Or "maybe they (Europe) won't notice if we sneak up on them..."
The American Century advocates in Washington DC were very good at "biding time" until they were strong enough to eclipse "the old", and not to care anymore.
With the "leverage" geography gave them (distance from squabbling Europeans), plus a drastically increasing power, as technology shrunk the world, they knew they would just have to wait long enough until the eternally squabbling Europeans had torn themselves to shreds.
Because in the arsenals of M-A-I-N there was another "weapon".
Well-known at the time, and formulated into words by John Quincy Adams: "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country: One is by sword and one is by debt."
Note: it was "a plan" of sorts.
Wait.
Simply wait.
Washington DC/The American Century: "Let's see what happens. Never let a crisis or war go to waste."
Washington DC: If your rivals are making a mistake, don't interrupt them...
The main big difference?
While London afronted/confronted the strongest continental power/alliance which was Germany and the Dual Alliance at the time, as a matter of policy, the USA made the strongest power/alliance the "temporary friend" during crises and wars, only to overpower it commercially/economically/financially after WW2 was over."
Smart.
Kaiser Bill wished for "a place in the sun" (i.e. "markets", and "spheres of influence").
IMHO they should've just given him one, without the push-back.
It was greed and the control-freak instincts of "old empires", jealously guarding their own.
What unfolded after that, was basically a bed Europe had made for themselves, and with WW1, Versailles (and others like Saint-Germaine, or Trianon) and WW2, had to sleep in.
1
-
1
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such division create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power...
------------------------------------------------
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite, or at least avoid total disunity.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Today, just like at all points on the timeline, America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the indivual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-----------------------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner, the intention is simply to avoid unity in Africa and the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Four corners of the globe. Same games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with (feelings). As Huxley remarked ... the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny 'failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.'..." Neil Postman.
Huxley is less well-known, but far more correct.
The information, sufficient to understand "what happened" (in history), and "what is happening today" (news/headlines) is out there. But "what happens/is happening" is drowned out by a cacophony of irrelevant information, leading the overwhelming majority of people to simply "switch of"...simply repeating "narratives" in order to fit in with their surroundings.
Majorities ending up thinking their own "narratives" are the only correct ones.
Mission accomplished.
That is what strategists aim to achieve.
"Divide and rule/conquer."
Europe has been "divided" and "ruled" over for more than a hundred years.
Around 1900:
There was an informal alliance of "English speaking races" (lol, King Edward in a letter to Theodore Roosevelt, see footnote***) taking shape, which was busy "informally nodding off" each others' conquests.
The logical conclusion with regards to that should have been that according to age-old rules, the answer would have needed to be to create an alliance of "non-English speaking...ahem...'races'..." (to quote the advocates of "English speaking races" ruling the world").
Logic/reasoning: "Balance of Power"-strategy, which is neutral and unbiased.
The fools were elsewhere.
Not even mainly in Berlin.
Almost everything else is "divide and rule/conquer".
Millions of ancillary details, to confuse and divide...
Today, the problem is not that there is too little information which is "controlled by a few 1%-ters" (Orwell).
The issue is there is too much clutter (Huxley).
Huxley correctly points out that leaders don't really have to hide/burn much with "Operation Legacy"-style deceit, one just has to make it too boring or complicated to read for the indifferent/ignorant/complacent crowds...making the deceit right out there in our faces.
The ignorant rant...
The complacent don't know or act...
The indifferent don't care.
The "cannon fodder" of history.
Around 1900:
The London lords thought they could use their geographical advantage to divide the continent, and thereby always be in a position "to rule" during crises and wars.
In the end they became a tool themselves: of the "division" of Europe by Washington DC (note, in geography "Europe" includes GB).
As the lords went about looking for tools to play "divide and rule" within other European powers/states, they became tools themselves.
***Footnote:
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: Edward in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.'
An ancillary detail, which seems to have gone under in the clutter.
"Civilizing factor" of course, nothing else but the hooded language of these "few" to kill a few people every now and then, in order to earn megabucks for themselves, while convincing millions that they were the 'good cops'...
Those so convinced pay the taxes to bankroll the "cops", while the profits have always been raked in elsewhere.
Of course (reality) "military industrial complexes" have existed ever since the first blacksmith realized he could earn more by selling swords to a rich king, rather than to sell ploughs to poor farmers...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Making "best fwiends" with Washington DC was politically stupid. A "partnership" which Washington DC would exploit to the fullest, and arm-wrestle the British Empire into the ground.
From atomicheritage(dot)org
"In September 1944, a second summit was held in Quebec City to discuss plans for the final assault on Germany and Japan. A few days later, Churchill and his family went to Roosevelt’s estate in Hyde Park, New York. The two leaders pledged in a memorandum, “Full collaboration between the United States and the British Government in developing Tube Alloys [code word for "nukes"] for military and commercial purposes should continue after the defeat of Japan unless and until terminated by joint agreement” (Goldschmidt 217).
Despite this promise, the death of Roosevelt in 1945 marked the end of wartime collaboration. President Truman chose not to abide by this second agreement, and United States nuclear research was formally classified in the 1946 Atomic Energy Act.
The British had contributed to the successful creation of an atomic bomb, and yet after the war were faced with the reality that they had been cut off from its secrets."
[End of quote]
Not just a minor detail, but part of a pattern of measures Washington DC/The American Century would take to overpower London.
That what happens when ones own empire is lead by "idealists", who go off in search of faraway empires in order to avoid having to make compromises with neighbors.
Brits should have made an alliance with Wilhelmine Germany (around 1900), and that would have saved their "empire".
Idealism" was thinking that "speaking English" was enough common ground to save the Empire...
1
-
1
-
@rocky5755 I forgot to add how it all started, and "Episode 1"....
Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
Scroll up...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ideology
Source: Dictionary
noun
1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of democracy"
Similar: beliefs, ideas, ideals
This "box" called "TV" billions bow down to, has got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives in sinecure comfort...
Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders who appear to them in these "boxes". The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) to kill for, is democracy in colusion with corporatism, and the slogan they chant is "Make the world safe for democracy".
Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders constantly lie and call upon them to kill to spread democracy.
One ideal, must be wrong.
When one criticizes an ideologue's ideology, they expose their true nature.
1
-
1
-
History rhymes.
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American Century after 1900, sitting on the globe's biggest "fence" (Atlantic Ocean/distance) while "eating popcorn" (waiting game), Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself up to the 1940s, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
The OUTSIDERS' strategy was always "if a local/limited war on the continent expands, then the engineered LONG war scenario," and this was declared BY the hegemon. This is not different today than it was 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or 300 years ago. The OUTSIDERS who avoid avoiding war benefit if all others fight to mutual exhaustion. This will not be different today now that Zelenski has recognized how he had been duped into the long war by Boris Johnson (Istanbul proposals torpedoed, whilst "blaming the other side"). For the "divider," sitting on the fence watching, the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that division is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose to work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How" and "that" are different premises.
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategists who openly admit this. The apologists will never address this, since they instinctively realize that they BENEFIT from wars elsewhere. All these "fence sitters" have to do is wait for the crash, boom, bang, then sail in and benefit...
The conflagration that took place after the 1990s have a prequel in European history, in the events of the 1890s up to 1914 and at Versailles. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", upon which one can plot the encirclement of Central Europe after the 1890s. Maps are a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The "world war" after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established around the year 1900 were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies as "buck catchers" (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907) favouring long wars.
set up against:
2) the continental alliances favouring short wars, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
The Albion used its unassailable GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION on the map to play games, not ONLY in Europe, but globally:
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after a short respite called the Cold War (1945-1991), with the 1990's Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primacy" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim on the marching route. Written down in strategy papers, for all to see. This time around the "targets" of the global strategy of divide-and-rule were not Central Europe/Central Powers (Treaty of Versailles, and others), but rather China and Russia. The new default rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" in Washington DC is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, then carve it up into little pieces like they did with Europe, via their "friends" the UK and France (London and Paris), using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves. After a short halt called "Cold War", the march of the empire continued, on the marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into, as concerted effort called divide-and-rule.
- Eastern Europe.
- Balkans/Black Sea/Caucasus region (southern pincer of advance).
- Baltic/Scandinavia (northern pincer of advance).
This was simply the continuation of the scheme to overpower Russia which dated from WW1, to make use of the weakness created by 3 years of war (1914-17/Eastern Front) exhausting and extending all. Therefore, it was never in the "interest" of the victors to achieve a fair balance of powers in Europe, as was the case in 1815 (balance of power/Concert of Europe). The intention was to create an IMbalance of powers as foundation, which could be exploited, regardless of what the political doves thought they were doing. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance (aka "defensive realism") by those encroached upon or encircled, get the propagandists to start "pointing fingers" (narrative control) at those being encircled or encroached upon. This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. Ask the First Nations, or Mexico.
Because of the own ideological indoctrination (something gladly attributed to others, aka "finger pointing") and proudly stated by such tropes as being "good guys" or "on right side of history" and being an "indispensable nation", the encirclers will never admit their own corruption because they feel better about the realities they have imposed on their neighbours either directly or by proxy, and do not intend to follow a simple moral logic of a strategy of power called the GOLDEN RULE: "Don't do unto others what you do not want done to you." Do you want to be encircled and encroached upon? Then do not do it to others. If you cannot follow such a simple logic, you must follow the logic of causality where there is a muddy trench waiting for you. Note: not these so-called "leaders" who deceive you here. For you, personally, the one reading this. The bunker boys and manipulators are safely tucked away in the bunkers, chanting slogans from their "mommy's basements", or hiding behind their keyboards (keyboard warriors), hoping they'll never end up where they cheer for.
The current "Greenland narrative" is nothing else but systemic expansion, started in 1776 and never stopped. An insatiable empire, hiding behind a narrative. Fact is that during WW1 planners in London, Washington DC and Paris were already planning their war against Russia in 1918, as systemic expansion, and needed "new best fwiends" (Eastern Europeans) to sacrifice as proxies, doing most of the fighting and dying, while they stood off and used their navies to "nibble around the edges" of Russia, and later step in with systemic expansion, and systemic profit and gain. Why is this a fact? Because it actually happened. This habit of finding proxies to do most of the fighting and dying repeated after the 1990s, looking for Slavic people who could be set up against their neighbours. Trust the Albion once, and you are in its "fangs" forever...
Today?
History is repeating.
Albion 2.0
Anybody who "believes" WW1/WW2 ever "ended" is already the fool, sacrificing himself for the systemic expansion and gain of "friends".
Imagine not knowing what WW1 and WW2 was about, and getting emotionally triggered every time your ideological standpoint is contested. WW1 and WW2 was about the destruction of the European balance of power, est. 1815, and this destruction was carried out by OUTSIDE ideologues, who entered Europe "Trojan Horse"-style, initially into the UK and France (destruction of the reign of monarchy, "sold" to the plebs as an "advantage"), and other countries on the fringes of Europe, intent on systemic gain. They morphed strong monarchies ("princes") into weak democracies ("mercenaries"), then used entire regions as tools (aka "proxies") to do most of the fighting and dying for them. The Treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to keep Germany "down" in European/global affairs, Russia "out" of European/global affairs, and the USA "in" (Lord Ismay) European/global affairs. It only failed because the USA did not sign up to Versailles. The USA could afford to wait.
Distance = impunity = advantage.
This is divide-and-rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@afineliner740 How "I came up with that" is written in history.
It has happened twice before, that Berlin seeking a peacefull end to a war Russia was engaged in, turned 180 degrees, as the alpha (London at the time) turned the tables.
First was 1879, after the Russo-Turkish War (Bismarck, the "honest broker" almost ending up with a continental European war, which he just managed to avert).
The second time was 1905, after the Russo-Japanese War of 1904/05 when the same happened. The Treaty of Bjorko demanded from Russia to end the war, thereby coercing Russia into a humiliating withdraw.
What makes you think Berlin strategists want to be seen as acting unilaterally, or are going to force Russia into a repeat of that, or humiliating defeats, without strong multilateral (NATO/USA) parallel actions?
1
-
The people of the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, they are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
1
-
1
-
1
-
AIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside powers can "surf in and skim off the profits". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS
European peoples are to daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that that end up thinking everything they do is justified, with "only a few exceptions"...
Has your nation, or your leader been "chosen as a favorite son"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have aside, or settle them fast, don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme, and actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU today, for the gain of the outside Western Powers, just like divide and rule sacrificed your grandparents and previous Asian generations during the Era of Imperialism...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Globalism/imperialism created all of its own enemies. Everything the USA /collective West is fighting/combatting these days, they created themselves in the past.
------------------------
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it is the only strategy which can be invisibly employed in times of war, and in times of peace.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In view of the overall grand strategy implications as painted below, in which the military collapse of France offered the potential of an "strengthening Eurasian block of authoritarian states" formating, and "striking outwards", the British pressure on France to remove the French fleet from North Africa, where they protected the French Empire against potential Italian attack (a potential "hyena move" by Mussolini) becomes clear.
If the French fleet could be strongarmed into leaving North Africa wide open to a seaborne assault, the Italians could be baited into attacking here, rather than concentrating their forces on British territories like Egypt or East Africa (first shots fired in June 1940), or reinforcing their military forces for attacks on Greece. Or in other words, luring Italy into "overextending" her forces in what looked like already defeated or weakened enemies.
How could Italy be goaded into attacking French North Africa?
French strategists of course, already knew what "game" was being played.
For Italy, the exposed seaborne flank of French North Africa was the "honeypot" (strategy) intended to divert Rome's attention into "going west", rather than "going east" (grand strategy).
Sticking a knife into the back of an old "ally" was not a difficult choice, and the only mistake Paris ever made was trusting these deceitfull "Albions" in London in the first place, when they first came with their "fwiendly offers" for burrying the hatchet way back in the 1880s...
1
-
1
-
Correct.
Chamberlain went to Munich, and with the formulation "to resolve that our nations never to go to war again" he made Hitler a historical offer.
Of course that was a diplomatic feeler and a suggestion for a foundation for further negotiations of "favored status".
To take over the role of main continental "balancing power" from France.
When Hitler invaded Rest-Czechoslovakia, in March 1939, that British offer was off the table. Understandable. Because there is a saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
After trying to fool the world with the "just uniting Germans"-lie, Hitler revealed his true plans. Czechs were not Germans.
With Munich, a "wrong" of Versailles had been righted, and Hitler ignored that.
He was heading for the Heartland.
For he "who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;who rules the World-Island commands the world."
(Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 150)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
From there, the economic overpowering, and/or military invasion, and/or political dislocation the British Empire step by step, was possible.
1
-
1
-
"Total war" as a matter of policy was planned by London long before WW1.
The same people who criticized German war planning of invading neutrals apparently had no scruples themselves planning wars on civilians, thinly veiled by using euphemisms...
"Indeed, Britain’s [pre-1914] plan for economic warfare may well have been the first attempt in history to seek victory by deliberately targeting the enemy’s society (through the economy) rather than the state. To be more precise, the target was the systems supporting the society’s lifestyle rather than the society itself. This was a novel approach to waging war."
From
Brits-Krieg: The Strategy of Economic Warfare
NICHOLAS LAMBERT
Note than unlike previous wars in which civilians had always become victims as "by products" of war (not specific policies), this was different.
The civilians were the enemy, and soldiers become ancillary.
Or as one author put it: GB intended "fighting" by letting her "allies" bleed.
Such people deserve neither an Empire, nor the rule of the world, or to be in a position to dominate European affairs.
Bible says the righteous shall inherit the Earth.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the British Empire.
Apparently, the British Empire didn't qualify.
Apparently, not "righteous enough".
Rule Britannia is gone. Superseded by The American Century...
Pax Britannica. Repealed and replaced by Pax Americana...
The eternal Anglo, cut down by Washington DC...
So first off, good riddance...
You live by Machiavelli, you go down the Machiavellian way...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 And so they played the "balancing games".
From: The Complete Yes Minister:
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe.
How absolutely funny...
They gave their diplomatic worst, were proud if it, and millions of young men from the Empire paid the price. Huddled in muddy trenches, getting their heads blown off, or drowning like rats on the seven seas.
That's what you get if you play follow the leader, when these leaders play "divide and rule" with the continent, for own gain.
Millions dead.
Millions mutilated.
Too bad.
So sad.
Price tag for these stupid "games"? A ruined British Empire.
Good riddance.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They "hopped on the scale", in times of peace and in times of war, whatever side was the weakest, to counter the ...ahem..."dictatorship" of the strongest country/alliance/power.
Apparently, European disunity suited the lords just fine...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 Every now and then, historians discover little hints about "secret discussions" that no amount of "Operation Legacy"-style burning and burrying of files can get rid of...
Note all 1905:
"Foreign Minister Sir Edward Grey thought entente with Russia a good idea. On 20 October 1905, during the election, he said:[10]
...if Russia accepts, cordially and whole-heartedly, our intention to preserve the peaceable possession of our Asiatic possessions, then I am quite sure that in this country no government will make it its business to thwart or obstruct Russia's policy in Europe. On the contrary, it is urgently desirable that Russia's position and influence be re-established in the councils of Europe.
and later, writing to his ambassador to Russia Sir Arthur Nicolson:[9]
It is not for us to propose changes with regard to the treaty conditions of the Dardanelles. I think some change in the direction desired by Russia would be admissible and we should be prepared to discuss the question if Russia introduces it.
In early 1907, Alexander Izvolsky, the Russian ambassador at Paris, raised the question. and talks were carried on in London with Russian Ambassador Count Alexander Benckendorff. Little is known but the "suggestion appears to have been made that Russia should have free egress from the Black Sea through the Straits, while other powers should have the right to send their vessels of war into the Straits without going into the Black Sea" together with some talk of "Russia's occupying the Bosphorus and England the Dardanelles, after which the Straits might be opened to other warships as well." In the event nothing came of the discussions at the time.[9]"
[Wiki]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
THE GEOPOSITIONAL ADVANTAGE OF POWER vs. MACHIAVELLI
The GEOPOSITIONAL advantage.
Explaining the concept of "an advantage" is simple.
Only those who deny reality will never understand, or pretend not to understand, making them liars (by omitting).
The "mommy's basement hero" or similar "keyboard warrior" is the archetype of an individual arguing from a GEOPOSIONAL advantage. The own "standpoint" can be richly, proudly, hectoringly, carnivorously (loosely quoting Jefferson) defended from a unique position of being unaffected by the potential EFFECTS of the own standpoint being vociferously voiced and proclaimed. In other words, as many proverbial expressions state the advocate will never face, or expect never to face, any consequences of the own vociferously claimed "truth". In fact, the repeatedly proclaimed "truths" only means arguing others into a standoff or conflict. The intention of the latter is to then quickly run off into the own safety zone, and from there (eating popcorn) "watch others fight".
The worst type of leadership one can imagine: The coward. The liar. The weak mind.
A simple question exposes them: Why aren't you there, in the "trenches," defending your OWN standpoint?
Then listen/read carefully. This species is evolutionary wired not only to become susceptible to manipulation, deception, lies and half-truths, but also to become the creators of manipulation, deception, lies and half-truths.
The worst type of leadership one can imagine: The coward. The liar. The weak mind.
Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove...
These types foster division from the background.
Step 1: Deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."
Then...
1) Divide-and-gain.
If not.
2) Divide-and-control.
If not.
3) Divide-and-rule.
If not.
4) Divide-and-conquer.
If not.
5) Divide-and-destroy.
...then, when everybody else is "down" and "out", start again with point 1)
The Albion.
The Albion 2.0.
MACHIAVELLIAN PRINCIPLE OF FAIRNESS
Of course, this argument cannot be turned around, since the principled standpoint, as opposed to the unprincipled standpoint of the "basement hero", is NOT to get into such positions in the first place. The standoffs as advocated BY these "basement heroes", are the escalation patterns which are recurrent throughout history. One sure-fire way to avoid conflict, is one of the oldest wisdoms/strategies of all: to do onto others, as one wishes to be done onto (not ONLY a moral standpoint, but ALSO a strategy of power to avoid escalation).
Of course, per Machiavelli, it is not only a wisdom, but also a strategy of power. Often quoted by imperialists/militarists with agendas as being "Machiavellian" is that "It is better to be feared than loved" which is however a distortion version of the Machiavellian strategy.
The same way they lie and distort everything, in order to bend it to their own world views.
Unfortunately, even Machiavelli's writing have become distorted into meaning "It's cool to be an a-hole and brag about it."
What Machiavelli actually advised in Chapter XVII was that it is best to be both loved and feared (compromise and deterrence, by being fair, see FOOTNOTE). Only when that ideal of "to be loved" is not possible, then to make others "fear" is the way forward. As always, the distorters, the deceivers, the liars (by omitting half the strategy) will always pretend to expose "truths," whereas what they are doing is actually distorting it.
That is why the world needs a global, multi-tiered, legally-based balance of power.
FOOTNOTE
Per Machiavelli: Strategy of "fairness".
Do you wish to be encircled, and be encroached upon, and be controlled from outside? Then don't do it to others. Because "fair" is (per Machiavelli) ALSO a strategy of power, and such principles as "putting yourself in the shoes" or "walking a mile in their shoes" are ways to determine a fair principle. The unprincipled have no principles, therefore avoid wasting time on them. Balance them out...
1
-
1
-
0_Hamas, just like every single "terrorist" organisation EVER, at any point in history ever, in any geographical location ever, by any religion ever, are always an EFFECT of oppression._
The USA/collective West is "classifying" the terrorists they created themselves with own PREVIOUS political actions, as terrorists...
Terrorism/Freedom fighting (POV) is always an "effect" not a "cause."
If you live in the west, then you (personally), or your parents, grandparents or previous generations have never ever ever fought anybody your own leaders have not personally set you up against.
Try me on this one.
Name me the war, incl. this current "War on Terror", and I'll inform you how your own government created it (aka "lay the foundation").
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sanders explained how divide-and-rule works in 2003.
The opposite of that is a balance of power, as foreseen by the Founding Fathers.
There is no balance of powers, allowing the vacuum cleaners of corporatism to fleece the American citizen.
This has been pointed out by a multitude of analysts ever since forever (Robert Reich, Carl Sagan, to mention just two noteworthy thinkers).
Soon the majority will "own nothing, and (supposedly) be happy".
The plutocrats have finally and totally won.
------------------------
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by powers, states, empires and corporations to maintain dominance over regions they wished to control and dominate. The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
The whole thing is then maintained by a house of cards made of lies and deceit, with billions of fiat currency.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yup.
What you dish out is what you get.
Counts for all, right?
Winston "expire the Empire" Churchill...
...teamed up with....
Bomber "burnt the Pound Stirling in a whirlwind" Harris...
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh yeah, you lose your "empire".
One nation's leaders chose to answer with "more than the measure", and as a result bombed themselves into financial and economic ruin...
Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, where it says "an eye for an eye"...
Quote: "The findings are that the strategic air offensive cost Britain £2.78 billion, equating to an average cost of £2,911.00 for every operational sortie flown by Bomber Command or £5,914.00 for every Germany civilian killed by aerial bombing. The conclusion reached is the damage inflicted upon Germany by the strategic air offensive imposed a very heavy financial burden on Britain that she could not afford and this burden was a major contributor to Britain's post-war impoverishment."
[Google "GB 1939-45: the financial costs of strategic bombing"]
Note: an average house in London cost around 3,000 Pounds in 1944]
Imagine that.
A house in London, for every "Oma Schickelgruber" killed in Germany.
Lose your Empire, and then some...
Aw well.
Too bad.
Should've read their Bibles...
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
It doesn't say "more than the measure".
1
-
1
-
Yup. There we have "the narrative" again.
Same old stuff repeated ad nauseam like a mantra, until the little kids start repeating it....
Fact is, that this entire sh*storm we are living in today, started in 1919 when whites wanted to IMPOSE yet another colony in the Levant on the local "brown people". Stupid white colonial mastahs were too blind to see that the age of colonialism was coming to an end, and rather than ending it peacefully, decently, and without bloodshed, they decided to cling on to it at all costs.
At Versailles, the ME was simply carved up.
Yet again, whites were screwing over "brown locals" royally.
Only this time, there was resistance.
500 years of the horrors of colonialism had opened the "brown people's" eyes.
So.
In 1919, they said "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deathitself6985 The USA misuses NATO as a tool to ensure its global hegemony.
For that it needs "Euroweanies" that it can manipulate.
Just enough emotionally steered "Euroweanies" who are easily manipulated in a giant "divide and rule"-game, which uses a variety of emotionally-laden topics to incite outrage, tear open old wounds (history), and/or use negative human emotions like greed or the fear of losing out, etc. to stir up trouble.
"Trouble" can then be swum in, like a fish in water.
Beware of the dividers.
Age-old advice: "When a man is prey to his emotions, he is not his own master."
Benedict de Spinoza
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]"
Or as the old "insider joke" goes: NATO's "function" is "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out."
Nobody needs "friends" like that.
1
-
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl/Historian)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games.
-------------------------------------
The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games.
--------------------------------------
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900.
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours.
Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.
Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war...
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies...
Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [Critical question: Who is "we"?]
And that is what they did.
And that is what you are fighting for.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
It would be one of the last times.
After WW2, GB lost the political leverage to impose onto others, and lost their Empire.
All causal effects of the own "attitude problem".
"Right or wrong", or "Was it a war crime", is all irrelevant.
Because there's always a big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
[Google: britannica & balance-of-power]
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, or dissing it (like France) would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, alienating France, and totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angered by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to play "balancing games" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...you loose your empire to the new kids in town...
From the unmistakable "Nr.1" in 1900, down to "merely on par" with Washington DC after WW1, down to "third fiddle" during the Cold War. All in less than a single lifetime...
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself. The world was divided in "East" and "West".
And down went the British Empire too...
I suggest not wasting your time arguing with immoral people.
Simply tell them the outcome of own actions.
1
-
1
-
Churchill was a terrible strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created *facts*. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, it won't be the first time in history that Europe's strongest nation was made "the enemy" as default setting by a few "lords", even though at a time (all throughout the mid-19th century, right up to 1880s) when most leaders, business partnerships, and common folks got along just fine...
[From Britannica...."Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself."]
The truth of course, that an own policy determined that no geopolitical form of co-operation with Germany was possible as secretly decided in London.
Policy?
The strongest nation is the enemy/rival.
Some things never change...
1
-
1
-
Then both "sides" must break through the power of the "divide and rule"-setup of the ME, implemented at the end of WW1, and continuing through to today.
Where lines are drawn in the sand, lines also go through the minds of millions of people. It's how "divide and rule" works, and why it is so effective.
It was "division" in WW1, and it still is "divide and rule" today.
It's ALWAYS divide and rule if governments defend wrongs against the wishes of its inhabitants.
For the "dividers", the resulting division is always good. They can rule over the fear, the discord, moderare the "finger pointers", and manage the "pointed at" alike.
The "winners"?
It those who send 3.8 billion to fund Israel each year, in Washington DC, almost all of it flowing back to the USA in the form of arms purchases...
It's how "divide and rule" works...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT* PREAMBLE
The States Parties to this Statute,
Conscious that all peoples are united by common bonds, their cultures pieced together in a shared heritage, and concerned that this delicate mosaic may be shattered at any time,
Mindful that during this century millions of children, women and men have been victims of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity,
Recognizing that such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world,
Affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation,
Determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes,
Recalling that it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes
What a horrible thing....right?
148 Cong. Rec. S3946 - THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DECISION TO ``UNSIGN'' THE ROME STATUTE....
1
-
The USAAF bombed with the intention to curb the German/Axis fighting potential.
The RAF (Bomber Command) bombed with the intent to destroy Germany as a "power".
Unfortunately London did not seem to understand nor follow their own geopolitical "logic", and somehow missed the USA's rise "across the pond".
Or the fact that there might be some long-term grievances resulting from history.
After WW1, the British Empire had already descended one rung, and after WW2 they would lose their markets to the USA, their sphere of interest in Central Europe/Baltics/most of the Balkans to Moscow, the nr.1 position as "ruler of the world, the privilege of "Pax Britannica, both to the USA", their self-determined role of "balancer of powers" for the continent, their stated goal of being the "decider of wars" on the continent, and finally their "Empire".
Sad...
1
-
1
-
How "divide and rule/conquer" is revealed by events, not by digging around in archives.
Wiki: "The Paris Economy Pact was an international economic agreement reached at the Paris Economic Conference, held from 14 June 1916 in Paris. The meeting, held at the height of World War I, included representatives of the Allied Powers: Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and Russia."
After a "won war" (perspective of 1916), these powers plus their dominions, colonies, and the potential "liberated assets" of the defeated nations after the "won war"-scenario (German colonies, German naval vessels, markets and concessions,etc.), formed a ring of powerful European survivors (plus one upcoming power in Asia) almost encircling the USA (geopolitics).
Five powers.
Potentially uniting.
Potentially potentially forming full military alliance over time, as time progressed.
Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and Russia...
The "instinct" is to divide potential unity.
After the USA joined the war in full force, Russia was soon out of this potential "alliance of the winners" after the November Revolution in 1917, without much outside input.
One down, 4 to go.
Next out was Italy, by sending her liberals running back home crying as Wilson sowing dissent between the "winners" from the inside, a means used in "divide and rule". In this case, by "ruling" that her favorite's (GB/France) secret deals counted more that the secret deals GB/France had made with Italy.
Two down, 3 to go...
After GB was persuaded to "drop Japan" by replacing a binding defence alliance (1902) with a non-binding "4 power treaty" (more detail in the thread below)...
Three down, 2 left..."
All that was left was the "cordial" non-binding "Entente of 1904 (GB/France).
These two "no obligations, just friends" (GB/France), just happened to be "US favorites" too. More "no obligations, just friends" (favoratism, another means used in "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies).
Europe was divided again.
Just like 1914.
Wilson at Versailles is often hailed as the idealistic neutral who wanted to save Europe...
Reality?
He was there as a forerunner of the American Century.
He came, he saw, and [divided and] conquered.
Vini, vidi, vici in slow motion.
Then he left again.
The USA didn't sign anything.
The USA didn't join any "leagues" of nations.
The USA didn't tie its hands with any rules.
There were no obligations, except the "rules" written by an expansionist Washington DC in the background ("think tanks" and other centers of strategic research).
A few years later, at the Washington Conference, her navy was "on par" with GB/Empire.
From an obscure colony on the fringes to a "5-5-3-2-2" (GB/USA/Japan/France/Italy) division of naval power in a 150 years.
Wilson: "Look at them jojos...that's the way you do it, get your empire for nothing and division for free..." ;-)
He was no different to most previous US Presidents, who put the USA first.
And the "USA first" was best achieved by keeping those plucky Europeans divided.
Watch "THIS is how to do it when things look hopeless! 💪🏻" on YouTube (Dave Wattle's win over 800m at the Olympics in 1972).
This is actual strategy explained on a small scale (sport event) which can be applied to all situatons of hierarchy and potential gain, incl. the "states/empires"-level of events.
The "no obligations, just friends"-side "hangs back" and strikes at an opportune moment when everybody else least expects it, are distracted, or simply tired (incl. "overburdened by debt" in the big picture of states/empires).
1
-
The original "drafted to be turned down" ultimatum to Serbia..
https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Austro-Hungarian_Ultimatum_to_Serbia_(English_translation)
....sounds kind of "firm but fair" to me.
Or maybe a variation of "talking softly (Wilhelm II), but carrying a big stick (warmongers)".
Always perfectly ok when doing it oneself, but always a case for objection if somebody else does it.
Fact remains, that the most favorable outcome of the July Crisis would have been if Serbia had simply accepted it in full.
Vienna did not "owe" the state which had supported the plot (Belgrade) a face-saving way out. The "harsh ultimatum" was therefore justified, considering the scope of the allegations at the time.
So which side wanted to avoid a diplomatic solution to the crisis?
That side was Serbia, supported by Russia, and egged on by France...
[of course, we are lead to believe that "an International investigation" or "neutral investigation" would have equally been able to fathom the depths of the Serbian leadership's potential involvement or the extent of their complicity: yes, a Dutch or Swiss guy with a pencil (note, not backed up by a "big stick"), would turn up in Belgrade, and ask nicely that the Serbian government should be kind enough and turn over all the evidence of own crimes, which sounds more like a plot for a Hollywood parody...]
Obviously the most favorable outcome of the crisis would have been "no war", and for that, Serbia would have needed to comply to the ultimatum in full, without exceptions. For that, Moscow would have needed to be equally firm, stating that it would not stand by Belgrade in view of the wrongful conduct.
That would have meant "no war" (in case one disagrees, one then also must state how Germany could have had their "planned all along" war which their warmongers wanted).
A subsequent Austrian lead investigation (note, including the "big stick") would have revealed the shocking depth of Belgrade's complicity.
That would then certainly have resulted in a regime change (as was indeed the "European" way for centuries).
Obviously, Moscow and Paris knew this outcome was the most likely in case that there was no war.
A peacefull regime change, however, would have meant that Russia could have buried their plans for influence in the Balkans, and control of the Dardanelles...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The people of Eurasia, including Western Europe (most of whom are Christians) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first London dragging along her junior partner Paris, then after 1945 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Eurasia, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the indivual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Socialism is, in a nutshell "the means of production and distribution of goods under the control of the state", and often means wide scale control of the economy by the people.
Populism is, also in a nutshell "handing out of goodies (social programmes) in return for populist support.
Both are present in many forms, and in many political and economic models.
Examples of populism? Currently, for example Poland (handing out state revenues as "baby money" to increase birth rates), or the US (Trump is using state revenues, i.e. trade tariffs to aid struggling farmers).
Such "freebies" and "goodies" in return for support of populist leaders is common. It led to the downfall of Greece, after cheap EU loans stayed out after the financial crisis of 2009.
It also led to the downfall of Venezuala, because the state could not keep up with the promises it had made to supporters, once the price of oil dropped.
I suggest doing your research elsewhere, and not on the channel of a conservative think tank, skewing and indoctrinating the uninformed into chanting "VENEZUELA" and "SOCIALISM" .
They are using misdirection and spinning information for political purposes.
China is a Marxist Socialist state. I dare say, economically very successful. Mike drop...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Douhet's initial doctrine proposals for future wars.
Basically: the bombardment of industry, transport infrastructure, communications, government and "break the will of the people".
The "morale bombing" bombing part of that is morally flawed. The same people who would state that "soldiers lining up civilians and mowing them them down" (like their enemies do) is despicable, then turn around 180˙ and say "burning people alive in their cities is 100% OK as long as we win".
Note here.
This is the "kill Oma Schickelgruber" jokingly referred to in books as a widespread attitude during the war.
Morally, most of the Allies (leaders and citizens alike) had no problem in making a civilian the prime target, as long as own moral deficiency can be hidden behind a suitable excuse ("we were actually aiming for factories, but missed").
This is a lie.
Civilians were not "collateral damage" (the euphemism used today) as the propaganda claimed during the war.
They were already the prime target of Area Bombing (the will of the people).
The issue was not "a learning curve", but a fundamental misunderstanding of geography/resources/balance of power.
Even an advocate of Douhet's proposals should have been able to foresee in any prewar appraisal that bombing Germany "to reduce production" was a fallacy in reasoning.
The key point: German (or any continental European country) production was not limited by a lack of factory space or production facilities, but entirely dictated by a lack of resources (or in other words, the lack of raw materials already placed a natural cap on production).
In their analysis of the main weakness of the Axis, the USA was spot on, and therefore proposed attacking a few key industries again and again. If they proposed this in 1942, it means that they had already deduced the above before even flying a single raid.
The US proposal was the correct one (no hindsight/learning curve).
At the same time, the RAF one of "dehousing/morale bombing" was wrong (no hindsight/learning curve). Analysis of London, Coventry, Liverpool had already revealed that if bombed, civilians become closer knit, and rally around those who protect them (government/leaders).
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BlondieSuperdog Usually in debates like these it doesn't take long for the emotional argumentation and logical fallacies to set in.
For example, the "...but if we hadn't bombed city centers, how much stronger would Germany have been?"
Easy answer? Not much.
Historians who have studied air warfare in WW2 have already concluded this long ago.
For example Munsen, Kenneth/German Aircraft of WW2 ISBN 623.74'6'0943 p. 13
"It has been estimated that Allied raids between mid-1943 and early-1945 cost the Luftwaffe some 18,000 aircraft in lost production. On the other hand, if these aircraft had been received, shortages of aircrew, fuel, and munitions would have severely limited their effective use." [end quote]
It wasn't as much the bombing which limited German industry, but the lack of resources, especially oil.
Without fuel, and trauned crew (needed fuel) every modern weapon is pointless.
Even as it was (real events) a large number of the aircraft that made it to the airfields had to be parked on the sides, because there was no fuel or trained pilots.
Here they made for perfect target practice.
Correct logic: Had more been delivered, there would simply have been more targets on the edges of the runway for target practice.
The Germans wouldn't have ended up with more aircraft in the sky by producing more aircraft. You needed fuel to fly, and fuel to train pilots.
Oil was the only really valid target.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From around 56:00 mins on wards....
"What else could we have done?"
The question in itself, is already an admittance that the reality of what happened was wrong.
In other words, if the Bombing of civilians was the RIGHT thing to do, why even bother asking what else could have been done?
It is clearly dawning on more and more people, that the indiscriminate bombing of civilians was pointless, and did little to end the war.
As for the question "what else could have been done?", I can think of dozens of better things, even if one stays with the doctrine or policy of strategic bombing.
As for my contribution:
The Volkswagen factory in Wolfsburg.
During WW2, the two main variants of the Volkswagen, the Kuebelwagen and the Schwimmwagen were just what the German Army needed. They were simple, cheap, and didn't use much fuel (a vital factor for oil deprived Nazi Germany), or raw materials such as high grade steel.
They were used in the same functions as the famous US Jeep -- general purpose and often vital second line work such as recce, liaison, repair and maintenance troops for the tanks, carrying messages, and as transport for the lower forward echelons of command.
In Africa, German soldiers called it "Deutsches Kamel" (German Camel), because it was perfect for desert warfare. Again, especially because it used little fuel (difficult to transport over the Med), and had an air-cooled engine.
With around 50,000 and 15,000 built of the two versions, they were also the main vehicles in this category, and invaluable to the German side. Furthermore, the factory was also used to produce mines and torpedoes for submarines, which until mid-1943 were sinking British merchantmen by the scores.
One would think that with such potent reasons, the factory would be near the top of the list of likely targets for the bomber boys at Bomber Command.
As a plus point, the Volkswagen factory lay far away from any of the formidable centers of the German air defense network, and along the easy to locate Mittellandkanal (waterway).
Conclusion? Destroying this factory would have much simpler than taking on more formidable targets, such as big city centers.
Assertion? Destroying this factory would have played a vital role in undermining the fighting potential and mobility of the German armed forces.
Volkswagen was never attacked in force, and only minor attempts were directed at this exposed factory. It survived the war with only minor damage. Production continued until almost the end of the war, because other targets had a higher priority.
1
-
1
-
@BlondieSuperdog Churchill was a terrible strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created *facts*. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
1
-
We in the west shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win). In other words, just as much Lend-Lease as needed, but not enough for the commie to storm all the way into Central Europe.
We should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary to aid D-Day, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why shouldn't it have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion?
Because we owed Stalin nothing.
Not single Jeep and not a single Studebaker truck, carrying commies into Central Europe by the millions.
Not a single drop of blood.
Stalin on the 19th August 1939, reported by meeting participants: "Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
So our leaders sacrificed untold scores of own soldiers, own resources, own empires, and millions of own dollars, to hand over half the world to the commies. Only to end up fighting them in the other half for the next fifty years. Korea, Vietnam, the ME, and hundreds of proxy wars from Central America to Africa. Thousands of more body bags of "our boys".
Rather silly to "help innocent and cute Uncle Joe Stalin", if we could have just let them "slug it out to utter exhaustion, and then march over the ruins, a fate Stalin had intended for us...
Ah...smart leaders.
Too bad we didn't have any.
There was Arthur "2 working brain cells" Harris who was "just following orders".
And Sir Charles "Mesopotamian kiddie terror bomber" Portal, must have jizzed his pants in fond recollection.
And, last but not least Winston "gas the Arab, Indians are beasts" Churchill, who thought that "flattening Germany" would leave a "Big Three" to rule the world. LOL.
Last time I checked, the Cold War had a "Big Two" and the totally bankrupt British Empire was squeezed out of existence.
Ah well.
Too bad.
Actions have consequences...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It all started off soooo gweat...
That "Hollywood movie Band of Brothers"-stuff.
Everyone speaking English.
The good guys...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE 2:
"At the end of the war, Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl/Historian)
Today, the USA has practically admitted that it misuses smaller nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the current war in the Ukraine:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.” Taken from a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region. In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script". Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" or "using little nations" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
Some things never change...
"The policy which Britain has been pursuing for the last two centuries has brought her prosperity and greatness. After each victory, Britain seems, on the surface to have gained for herself no advantage whatever; all she did, she claimed to be an act of international chivalry and justice but a deeper analysis of British statesmen's claims reveals that they never speak the truth. Britain's key policy is to attack the strongest country with the help of weaker countries and then to join the weakened enemy in checking the growth of other countries and so on, and so on. British foreign policy has remained basically unchanged for two centuries. When Britain befriends or colonizes another country, the purpose is not to maintain a cordial friendship for the sake of friendship but to utilize that country as a tool to fight all threats to her supremacy. Therefore Britain always remains in a commanding position by making other countries fight her wars while she herself reaps the fruits of victory." Taken from The Vital Problem of China by Sun Yat-Sen, 1917
Should we eternally defend these long-dead historical "lords" who sacrificed pawns so their own crumbling "Empire" could survive a few more years?
Whilst these "fine gentlemen" in suites and bowler hats, scrambled to invent tax havens to safeguard the riches they had looted and raked in for a few hundred years, they used emotional arguments to cause outrage in times of crises, or sent the lower classes scrambling for the muddy trenches in times of war...
These tax havens they created spared their own obscene wealth, while the middle-classes and poor "masses" bore the burden of "Empire".
These fine elites sacrificed pawns following a "priority list": first to go were the "pawns" abroad, then followed by such in the own country, while skimming the cream off the top for themselves.
After WW1, they already knew "Empire" was on the way out, but preferred playing the game (strategies) with human lives just a little longer.
(Evidence: Search for The Spider's Web documentary on the Timeline Channel, here on YT).
Though it isn't possible to say when the American Century will go down in the same way as the British Empire once did, I will predict what will happen.
Maybe it will last another dozen years.
Maybe two-dozen.
Maybe even another fifty years...
Who knows?
Whatever.
The first "hedge fund manager"-types are already betting against the US dollar as the world reserve currency.
Such "hewoes" and "patwiots", lol
They will take their accrued "assets", and and the obscene wealth and profits raked in over the past American Century, to tax havens WHEN America's "century" implodes: leaving millions of middle-class and poor Americans to rub their eyes while wondering wtf happened...
History will repeat itself, unless the hegemon changes its deceitful ways (Google: "What does the Bible say about deceitful friends", to discover how history repeats itself in endless cycles).
The Founding Fathers once described London as “rich, proud, hectoring, swearing, squibbing, carnivorous” (Jefferson), therefore the perfect type of character flaws in a nation's leadership which one can "smear honey around the mouth", then infiltrate and then overpower: Which is what the USA did after 1895, "starting" with the first Venezuela Crisis.
Didn't anybody notice?
Washington DC sold out the "protection" they had offered to a "little nation" called Venezuela in the form of the Monroe Doctrine, as a sacrificial gift to London, and a "friendship" which could drive a wedge between arising European attempts at more unity.
Nope.
Nobody noticed.
Today, the new rich, proud, hectoring, swearing, squibbing, carnivorous "rulers of the world" in Washington DC are imitating exactly what they critized a quarter of a century before.
1
-
The necessity to balance power is a long-standing reality amongst political actors and strategists. The logic and reasoning fill a ton of books, journals, theses, and articles, elaborately exploring the theory, based on the necessity to create an equilibrium between the powers or suffer consequences for not abiding by such logic. The issue is not that this age-old proven logic has been written down, the issue is that one can make people believe that balancing power is fallacious, and make people believe that a few chosen "good guys" should hold the keys to a peaceful world as hegemony.
What the world lacks is wise practical leaders. Phronesis which is wisdom in determining political standards, practical understanding, and sound judgment. It comes from the Latin phronēsis, from Greek phrónēsis, meaning "practical wisdom, prudence in government and public affairs".
Obviously, far too extensive to ever cover in a yt comments section, but in brief, the logic/reasoning is fairly similar across the ages. A few excepts, if only from the past couple of centuries:
Nicholas Spykman: "...political equilibrium is neither a gift of the gods nor an inherently stable condition. It results from the active intervention of man, from the operation of political forces. States cannot afford to wait passively for the happy time when a miraculously achieved balance of power will bring peace and security. If they wish to survive, they must be willing to go to war to preserve a balance against the growing hegemonic power of the period."
John Mearsheimer: "...status quo powers are rarely found in world politics, because the international system creates powerful incentives for states to look for opportunities to gain power at the expense of rivals, and to take advantage of those situations when the benefits outweigh the costs."
Kenneth Waltz: "As nature abhors a vacuum, so international politics abhors unbalanced power."
Hans Morgenthau: "The aspiration for power on the part of several nations, each trying either to maintain or overthrow the status quo, leads of necessity, to a configuration that is called the balance of power and to policies that aim at preserving it."
Christopher Layne: "Great powers balance against each other because structural constraints impel them to do so."
Apart from these fairly modern examples, the logic that belies this realization is thousands of years old.
No strategist in any of the capital cities can claim "I didn't know."
Around the year 1900 as the USA grew and grew in rapid strides, both economically and territorially, which European capital city was principally responsible for not balancing that growth out with an alliance of European powers?
To rephrase the same question. In other words, as the concept of "balance of powers" went from "European" to "global", why didn't anybody but Berlin bother to try and balance out the rise of the USA? (evidence for this statement is in the form if a memorandum by Berlin, to St Petersburg presented in 1896)
Around the year 1900, technology rapidly bridged distances as the planet shrunk due to new inventions, and the Spanish-American War showed what would happen to European empires when they became "sick men." These were the same words European powers used to mock their own neighbours in the "Old World", as they greedily carved out little chunks of the "sick man" Ottoman Empire for themselves, so they obviously knew what would happen to themselves when they weakened. Dog-eat-dog.
Europeans are born losers until they figure this out.
-------------------------------------------------------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Henry Kissinger stated Washington DC's policy for the American Century: "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests." That simply means empires don't have friends, and if your little nation is no longer useful, it'll be written off with a few thoughts and prayers. The hegemon will wiggle and slime their way from "victory" to victory, as long as everyone else does not unite. That is how the strategy of divide-and-rule works.
In a graphic depiction of systems, the "divide-and-rule"-world under which division rules, is diametrically opposed to the logic of a balance of powers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside powers can "surf in and skim off the profits". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS
European peoples are to daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that that end up thinking everything they do is justified...
Has your nation, or your leader been "chosen as a favorite son"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have aside, or settle them fast, don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme, and actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU, for the gain of the outside Western Powers...
1
-
1
-
1
-
LOL. No, that is certainly debatable. He was a TERRIBLE strategists.
Luckily there were a few saner people around to reign him in.
1940 = Operation Winfried led to Nazi invasion of Norway (1941/42 troops stationed here invaded the SU and aircraft based here sank hundreds of Allied ships bound for Murmansk)
1941 = withdrawal of troops from N. Afr. to Greece (which had already defeated the Italians), meant costly N.Afr. campaigns right up to 1943. The Italians would have already folded in 1941, and Tripoli taken, not for the decision to divert troops to Greece.
1941 = sent 2 battleships into an airspace under Japanese control (Prince of Wales/Repulse)
1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the ENTIRE British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was RAW MATERIALS which limited German industrial production).
1943 = The ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that ONLY soldiers and tanks created FACTS. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tuban plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
I could carry on for a few more hours, but my fingers are tiring ...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correct.
I can see where you're going, but the argument of "that's what the consumer wants" also rang true for the tobacco industry in the 1970s or 1980s.
The additives in tobacco products (for example menthol soothing the lungs) and misleading advertising is compatible to today's oil industry, and all the related industries (cars, plastics, internal combustion engines for multiple purposes, etc) which block the advancement of alternatives.
If those industries also have to carry the ENTIRE follow-up costs of their products in the future (which are today conveniently carried by all of us, the tax-payers...not those massively profiting), it becomes a far less economic/desirable and would open the way for alternatives.
Bottom line, IMO?
All the alternatives are only so (seemingly) expensive, because the oil industry (and all related industries) are charging us with a hidden "bill" which ALL of us are going to pay 5 or 10 or 20 years from now...
Will it take a long time?
Sure.
The first time a link was created between smoking and cancer was in 1950, but it wasn't until 2000 that the tobacco industry finally suffered big time (Phillip Morris).
1
-
The minute some or other leaders in Europe step forward to unite people over-regionally, and start speaking of concepts like the "common European home," the dividers will immediately work on their own counter-strategies (see the Clinton admin in the 1990s).
One of the core techniques of the divide and rule/conquer strategy is favoritism: it is really simple, but no system of power which ever made it to the top, will ever admit how simple it is. Most power players who discover the simplicity of the technique, will try to disguise it and misuse it for own gain, rather than to expose it for what it is: a means of deception, which once exposed and widely-known, will unravel the power it holds over billions of minds. Power players on all tiers of reciprocal human interaction with an intent of gain motive can never admit that they use ze technique themselves, nor can they accuse others directly of employing it, because they all employ it, either directly, or indirectly via proxies. Therefore you as a commoner will hardly ever hear it being discussed and repeated like the proverbial "mantra": it occupies a lowly existence in intellectual debates, even though it is the key to true power. Regardless of the "system of gain" in question, which come up with all kinds of subterfuge to avoid being immediately exposed as playing the game of divide and rule themselves...
The favorite = the proxy.
Scale it up or down to whichever tier you wish.
All that is needed is a position of superior power.
Divide and rule/conquer creates "favorite sons" (Ukraine) on the one side, and "scapegoats" on the other as "default rivals/enemies" (Russia).
1
-
1
-
1
-
US President Donald Trump, contradicting the official "freedumb & democwacy"-narrative: "We’re keeping the [Syrian] oil. We have the oil. The oil is secure. We left troops behind only for the oil." Now (lol, predictable), over to the dissenters, with their "narrative" of "How if WE don't steal the oil, then ISIS would've done it..."
The same ISIS the "dividers and rulers" had created themselves, with their own previous actions starting in 2002/03...
The question posed to Indians is obviously whether they can reconized how policies of DIVIDE AND RULE are multi-tiered, and run in parallel. Whether Indians can recognize the danger they are in, either if they "choose the divider" OR whether they try to make their peace with theit neighbors.
Because India is on a fracture zone between the tectonic plates of empires, and regardless of their choice, they WILL become a victim. All it depends upon, is how strong their country becomes, or whether they become a rival of Western hegemony.
Either "set up against China", OR become divided in COLOR REVOLUTION-style internal civil war, with "terrorists" (Muslim nationalists population riled up against the majority Hindu nationalists). As India gets turned into a ME style quagmire of sectarian violence, incapable of uniting, and then "dividers" will come along, just like 1947, and draw their lines on maps as individually weaker "statelets" (after the locals are conveniently "extended" and "exhausted" by civil war and revolution).
Making use of the geographical advantage, the advance via staging areas continues one step at a time, as other nations are set up against each other with clear intent, as revealed by private discussions and letters...not the kind words and speeches intended for the consumption of the riff-raff (us commoners).
"From the outset of hostilities, the dividers/rulers, whatever sympathies notwithstanding, privately wished for the continued presence of China in East Asia to serve as a counterweight against Indian expansionism. He perceived that Indian domination of the region (REGION 4) could prove as detrimental to American policy objectives as had the Chinese domination. The dividers/rulers (and their willing/unwilling tools) with a hopeful supposition that "the two powers will fight until both are fairly well exhausted, and that then peace will come on terms which will not mean the creation of either a yellow peril or a light brown peril.” They will admit that they "should be sorry to see China driven out of East Asia,” and averred that "driven out she will surely be if the war goes on.” In sum, the strategy is, "It is best that they should be left face to face, so that each may have a moderative action on the other."
The first steps along this multi-tiered road, have already been "planted", and how the individual Indian is going to "cheer"...
The strategy of divide and rule as revealled in 1994 Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Closing the Open Door Policy: American Diplomatic and Military Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Reactions to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Jonathan Bennett Ault College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences (pp.49-51) suitably adapted, BECAUSE DIVIDE AND RULE IS ALWAYS THE SAME "TUNE", regardless of the time and place, or scale of the actions...
We must all beware of not becoming the "defenders" of something we don't truly understand, because "...for the powerful, crimes are those that others commit." - Noam Chomsky
A quick overview of the modus operandi of imperialism, by looking at the history of "Panama" around the year 1900.
Imperialism:
1) The imperialist power wants something (say, the Panama Canal in the late-19th century)
2) accuse some other power of being "imperialist" or whatever... (Columbia, the legal owner of the territory)
3) disguise the own systemic greed as "poor people"-argument
4) center of power (corporatism in alliance with Washington DC) supports local "revolutionaries" who want secession
5) pay these resulting "freedom fighters" to request the imperialist power's aid (aka the creation of "the proxy")
6) carve up the sphere of influence into seperate countries
7) go back to 1)
8) get a lot of homegrown "neoimperialist" (fanboys, usually the "sitting in mommy's basement"-variety), to vociferously defend the disguised imperialism, usually by "skewing the timeline of events", or another use of the plethora of deceptive means...
Neoimperialism
With regards to "Taiwan", according to international law it is a part of China, just like Hawaii or Puerto Rico is a part of the USA. 1) The USA wants something (military bases to encroach on and surround its own rival (China), which it created 20 years ago as a matter of Washington DC policy)
Now, implement "steps 2 through 8": the USA wants something, which is to militarily surround their own main objective (grand strategy), and they will build up "proxies" to do the heavy lifting or "bloodletting" (strategy/John Mearsheimer) for them, while they stay in the background and finance the bloodshed. The scale of this is not important: the startegy is the same.
The "buck passers" (strategy/Washington DC) then simply disguise every event as "saving the poor people" story. These "poor people" live in the territory they or corporations have a strategic interest in (set up as "buck catchers" by the alpha).
It is really the eternal game, and all that is needed for it to continue eternally, is complacency (by the many), indifference (by those who have power), and ignorance (of the power of "greed").
Buck passing, buck catching, bloodletting...always ze same good guys, because "...for the powerful (edit: <20% psycho potential), crimes are those that others commit." - Noam Chomsky
The question posed to Indians today is obviously whether they can reconize how policies of DIVIDE AND RULE are multi-tiered, and run in parallel. Whether Indians can recognize the danger they are in, either if they "choose the divider" (the so-called "morally superior West) OR whether they try to make their peace with their neighbors. The danger is the same.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@demonvictim ...but, but, but...If, if, if...lol
Honestly, you are assuming "guilt" even before anything happened.
Shall we turn it around, to see what it's like?
So, he basically said "because you might sexually assault me, you must bring a witness".
So, image next time you suggest a date, and the girl says "because you might rape me, you must bring your mother. Here, look at the latest rape statistics...."
I guess you'd be totally thrilled to be thrown into the same crowd with rapists, and you'd be deeply understanding, because of course you know that men raping women, is far more common than women making false accusations of sexual misconduct.
Correct?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheTeach56 Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and lose is closer to what happened.
DIVIDE AND CONTROL
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels, and any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain, simply needed to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. Once "divided", there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Some examples regarding the theory in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors would offer a foothold in Europe.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have such consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement after 1895, amongst other less "valuable" suitors, was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below). The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises made"...lol
With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...lol.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below footnote explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics sterted with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947. It is alive and well. It has surrounded every aspect of power politics on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Same with the funding of opposing European leaders and states (for example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s).
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else, while "eating popcorn and chips"...
1
-
The "divide and rule" strategy gives millions of people the illusion that they are struggling for an own cause, whilst actually depleting their own energy fighting for the causes of other, higher powers...
[see footnote]
Just like "democracy" gives voters the illusion of choice, only to set them up in a collective "divide and rule"-setup, in which influence/TRUE power is funneled overwhelmingly in one direction: upwards.
Just like capitalism, gives advocates the illusion of chance, only to set them up in a collective "divide and rule"-setup, in which wealth is eternally funneled overwhelmingly in one direction: upwards.
Empires use and abuse human beings as...
- walls and barriers
- as proxies for the own gain
- as tools (instruments of power)
- as potential "staging areas" for future own use
- as "extensions" of the own power (or increased "reach" for the imperialist power)
Using other people are "cheap ways" to advance the American Century.
"Cheap" to the tune of 113 BILLION dollars to date, for probably the easiest avoidable war of the century...so far.
"To be clear, aiding Ukraine, giving the money to Ukraine, is the cheapest possible way for the US to enhance its security." - Zanny Minton Beddoes, editor-in-chief of The Economist
Just recently, and one of an entire string of similar such comments exposing the true strategy of power, Gen. Keith Kellogg (Ret.) said it's the "acme of professionalism" to use Ukraine to fight Russia because it "takes a strategic adversary off the table" without "using any US troops."
And then he added, "we can focus" on "our primary adversary, which is China."
China, the default enemy, to avoid Eurasian unity.
Divide and rule.
It's a long game...
Footnote:
The "divide and rule"-setup in any system, on any tier, is successful, because it employs an almost automated multiple hurdle/multiple cut off technique to keep good people "out" of the truly important positions of power. Do you remember Cassidy Hutchinson? She "failed" the test.
She "stumbled" on the very first "hurdle" on the road to true power, which is to remain silent.
...and that, in a nutshell, is how it works.
rgds
1
-
1
-
Just imagine: A few signatures under a timely comprehensive European security agreement at the turn of the previous century (around 1900) would have avoided WW1 (and by association also WW2).
A few signatures under a timely comprehensive European security agreement which also incl. Russia, at the turn of this century (around the year 2000) would have avoided the current war in the Ukraine (and by association all which will follow in the future).
“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”
— Henry Kissinger
The beauty of "history", is that the "control freaks" of history tell you exactly what they aim to do.
Kissinger's quote is of course not restricted to modern times only, when he stated it.
It is one of those age-old truisms, most well-known to the history fan as the "siege" of towns and fortresses throughout ancient history, or as the "naval blockade" (military strategy) as technology improved, or in modern times the "political/economic sanctions" (politics). All with a host of variations as our world became more and more complex.
The aim is to coerce and to extort.
To blackmail and to armwrestle an advantage from the elevated position of the "higher ground" onto others, with or without negotiations, or needing to make concessions, or simply impose "jackboot"-style.
But in nature and physics, every "force" results in an equal and opposite reaction force (Newton/Third Law).
Wiki "In international relations, the security dilemma (also referred to as the spiral model) is when the increase in one state's security (such as increasing its military strength) leads other states to fear for their own security (because they do not know if the security-increasing state intends to use its growing military for offensive purposes).[1] Consequently, security-increasing measures can lead to tensions, escalation or conflict with one or more other parties, producing an outcome which no party truly desires; a political instance of the prisoner's dilemma.[2][1][3][4][5]
The security dilemma is particularly intense in situations when (1) it is hard to distinguish offensive weapons from defensive weapons, and (2) offense has the advantage in any conflict over defense.[1] Military technology and geography strongly affect the offense-defense balance.[1] The term was first coined by the German scholar John H. Herz in a 1950 study.[6] At the same time British historian Herbert Butterfield described the same situation in his History and Human Relations, but referred to it as the "absolute predicament and irreducible dilemma".[7] The security dilemma is a key concept in international relations theory, in particular among realist scholars to explain how security-seeking states can end up in conflict.[5]"
(end of quote)
Of course, something being the topic of a historical analysis, or termed/defined at a later date, does not mean it did not exist at a previous stage in history.
It existed as a concept, often under different names, or even in the form of mythology if you lived in ancient Persia or Greece, and it existed if you lived in GB at the turn of the previous century, looking at "Wilhelm building ships".
Such "tit-for-tat"-logic has always existed in the dog-eat-dog world of "empires", alliances and states. It became prevalent only after the age of print, widespread democracy and the resulting diluted power shared amongst more and more entities. All of which would need to convince more and more people, becoming the norm (say, for the sake of argument) during the 19th Century.
Just imagine: A few signatures under a timely comprehensive European security agreement at the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") would have avoided WW1 (and by association also WW2).
A few signatures under a timely comprehensive European security agreement which also incl. Russia, at the turn of this century ("around the year 2000") would have avoided the current war in the Ukraine (and by association all which will follow in the future).
Aww well...too late for all that now.
In both cases, the "few signatures" would have avoided endless hardships.
Who benefited, if the world of "no signatures" prevailed?
The idiomatic expression about frantically rushing about trying to "close the gate after the horse bolted" was literally invented for European politics.
Basically everything they do is "too little too late".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RamMohammadJosephKaur See above:
Stalin obviously made the N/A pact with Hitler, because he wanted the western nations to slug it out in a WW1 style, mutually destructive war, leaving his "red hordes" to march over the ruins and expand communism. This had already been the "recipe for success" during the civil war, and the victory of communism in Russia, the Ukraine, and other ex-Imperialist Russian territories.
Not only that, but a less obvious advantage of the pact with Hitler was that almost the entire "sphere of influence" lost by Russia to GB and France after WW1 (Finland, Baltic States, Moldavia), would be returned to Moscow with merely the stroke of a pen. Western influence here (Poland, Baltic States, the "Little Entente") wiped out with no risk of a destructive war for Russia...or, so the plan.
One can almost imagine Stalin in August 1939, fantasizing in his datcha about how the western nations would tear each other apart, leaving his armies to conquer the war-torn lands, and exhausted people.
The "just gaining time" excuse for the Ribbentropp-Molotov Pact still made for this mass-murdering despot is BS. A leftover from the propaganda of WW2 when the narrative was of cute "Uncle Joe", one of the good guys betrayed by Hitler.
Obvious nonsense.
Stalin wanted war, and got it when he gave his consent for carving up Poland, creating exactly that common border (where there was none before), to enable a war between Germany and the SU (impossible, before Aug 1939). His mistake was that he thought he could use Hitler as a proxy, to rid western influence from the sphere of influence of the old Tzarist Russia.
Stalin WANTED war, and enabled it. It simply did not turn out the way he envisaged...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Remember all their names.
But as millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of others like Aaron have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA, dragging along its weak "collective West", practices colonialism for corporations. (aka systemic expansion, hidden behind cool sounding stories for the plebs, of "freedom" and "fighting for democracy").
The technique is age-old: divide-and-rule.
------
"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.
Here’s how the strategy typically works:
Creating Divisions: Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
Fostering Competition and Distrust: The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
Maintaining Control: With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.
Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.
The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors.
SETTLER COLONIALISM MORPHED INTO
CORPORATE COLONIALISM
The last 500 years of European/white settler colonialism as a subsection of the divide-and-rule technique. The strategy was "farms/forts" and a systemic, slow advance into the lands of ingenious peoples all over the world. Same happened in North America, Australia, New Zealand, the Levant, South America, Southern Africa, etc.
Broken promises, broken treaties, looking for excuses to make the next 'step' (ratchet principle). The only places the strategy of slow ponderous expansion failed was where the local systems were too numerous or organized (East Asia). The "template" might have various regional differences, but the end effect is always the same. Slow, step-by-step advance of the own ideology, economic systems, corporations and political power.
Simply exchange the "forts/farms" of the past 500 years, with the current "military bases/corporations" to "see" the technique.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@whatwhat3432523 It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
1
-
1
-
A fool and his empire are easily parted.
Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
What could possibly go wrong?
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised. "Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamalsumrall8833 Of course they do.
They have "something to do", but not like you think.
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or the British Empire's Mackinder/Pivot of History before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater European/Eurasian (geographically incl. the ME) co-operation and trade. Once that has been achieved, keep all the little minions "down," and grow off their weaknesses in the zero-sum reality of the temporary status quo. Note that "resources" cannot be produced with the snap of a finger. Creating new resources, are long-term effects of strategies, steered by the same powers. It is the CONTROL these control freaks want and steer towards, using their geographical advantage.
With re. to how tools to implement the strategy are used: Robert Dickson Crane served as foreign policy advisor to President Richard Nixon from 1963 to 1968: "At that time I had read a little about Islam, because I thought Islam would be the strongest and most durable ally of the United States against Communism. Because both of us, Nixon and I, saw Communism as a world threat ..."
Note how they openly admit how they use "tools" (strategy) to "steer" (plan) against others, when it is useful to themselves.
Note also how your "enemies today," as a collective (Islam) were the systemic "good guys" in a different past. They were the "good guys" because they (Muslims as a collective) were useful at the time, as Kissinger implemented, to goad the SU into invading Afghanistan, where they could then be "combated by proxy" similar to the Ukraine post-2022 and today.
Today as we watch on, the Ukraine is being burnt to the "last Ukrainian soldier" accompanied by cheers of "...but, but, but they had a choice!!"
Poland will be next to be given a "choice," if the Ukraine fails as US/Western proxy and tool, in a long list of previous examples of the Washington DC/Pentagon-steered global strategy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jwonz2054 Agreed. All western leaders (not only the USA) egged the Ukraine on to "stand your ground", tben dumped them and are now doing next to nothing.
Disgusting.
Do you know why ? Answer: it's policy.
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere of influence, the Black Sea region. In other word, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
This US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed.
1
-
1
-
Here is the full text of the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel...
https://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/eng/megilat_eng.htm
It is more noteworthy in what is not mentioned...
Note here, that the borders were not defined (vaguely stated as "Eretz Israel"/ Biblical Israel, which you can google for more info. Click on "images", and you might understand why the Arab neighbors were not amused...)
Secondly, the majority of inhabitants at this time, were still Arabs, which were ONLY mentioned in a little paragraph down at the bottom somewhere, and in connection with "rights" blah, blah.
Note also, that no mention is made of "democratic state". Obviously, since at this stage democracy would have backfired, since the Jews were still outnumbered 30/70.
The text makes it quite clear who would be boss...
Israel only legally became a "democratic state" in 1985.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state
Of course, at this stage the majorities have been completely reversed (80/20 for Jews), so that becoming "democratic" was now no risk....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From Wiki:
"Initially, both Egypt and Israel announced that they had been attacked by the other country. Gideon Rafael, the Israeli Ambassador to the UN, received a message from the Israeli foreign office: "inform immediately the President of the Sec. Co. that Israel is now engaged in repelling Egyptian land and air forces." At 3:10 am, Rafael woke ambassador Hans Tabor, the Danish President of the Security Council for June, with the news that Egyptian forces had "moved against Israel".[1] and that Israel was responding to a "cowardly and treacherous" attack from Egypt…"[2] At the Security Council meeting of June 5, both Israel and Egypt claimed to be repelling an invasion by the other,[1] and "Israeli officials – Eban and Evron – swore that Egypt had fired first".[3]
On June 5 Egypt, supported by the USSR, charged Israel with aggression. Israel claimed that Egypt had struck first, telling the council that "in the early hours of this morning Egyptian armoured columns moved in an offensive thrust against Israel’s borders. At the same time Egyptian planes took off from airfields in Sinai and struck out towards Israel. Egyptian artillery in the Gaza strip shelled the Israel villages of Kissufim, Nahal-Oz and Ein Hashelosha..." In fact, this was not the case,[4][unreliable source?] The US Office of Current Intelligence "...soon concluded that the Israelis – contrary to their claims – had fired first"[5] and it is now known the war started by a surprise Israeli attack against Egypt's air forces that left its ground troops vulnerable to further Israeli air strikes.
Though Israel had struck first, Israel initially claimed that it was attacked first. Later it claimed that its attack was a preemptive strike in the face of a planned invasion.[6]"
END OF WIKI QUOTE
First, Israel lied that they had been attacked.
Then, when the evidence proved the contrary, Israeli leaders changed their tune to "aaaahmm...OK...it was preemptive..."
Then, when even that became untenable (no evidence), Israel (Begin) AGAIN changed the tune to "weeeell...uhm...remember if we had stopped Hitler in 1936...blah, blah..."
IMO, if somebody constantly has to change their "tune" because they are lying, then they are obviously hiding something....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We in the the West/NATO are not "free".
You and me are a victim of "divide and rule" Washington DC employing an age-old strategy.
Very simple strategy:
Keep the tension high.
An age-old political strategy. Old as the mountains...
Today everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf...
Of course the afraid little sheep will flock to the shephard (alpha).
The alpha has no interest in achieving lasting peace.
The alpha adores the dependency of the afraid sheep who flock around him...
And re. "strategies" and how "the truth is revealed on scraps of paper" (Roehl)
The USA has practically admitted that it misuses all small nations as "lightning rods" and "tools" to advance own global domination.
Adam Schiff, in 2020, two years before the war:
"Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism, and resisting any nation’s efforts to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force, even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover, as one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
From a short ebook "Adam Schiff Impeachment an Opening Argument".
Note the use of "Russian expansionism", when it is actually the USA/NATO which has been acting as an icebreaker these last 30 years to create PNAC/EU markets in the traditional Moscow sphere if influence, the Black Sea region.
In other words, a typical attempt of "flipping the script".
Note also that this US policy regarding "tools to fight for US interests" was incidently revealed as a by-product of the probe into the alledged attempt by Trump to blackmail the Ukraine to dig up "smear material" on the Biden family for dirty domestic political games.
They say say "the devil is in the detail".
I say the details reveal the devils among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jbhrs I suggest going to the search bar of YT, and searching for "Cenk TYT on Armenian Genocide" or "TYT comments conspiracy theories",,or similar. There are at least a dozen TYT videos on this.
Suffice to say, he has since revised his position, same as he has revised his stance on the Republican Party.
Changing one's opinion, if the facts don't support a conclusion anymore (as he did with the Armenian Genocide) is admirable. Note, that he never claimed that it didn't happen, or denied the mass-murders or mass war crimes. He (and others) denied that it fit the definition of "genocide".
That it was a war crime was never disputed, not even by Turkey today (note, that many Turks today still deny that it fits the definition of "genocide").
Unlike dogmatists, he has shown that "facts" matter more than his "feelings" :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
October/November 1918.
Why did Wilhelm "have to go"...
In politics, we are hardly ever given the real reasons why things happen, or why policy decisions are implemented.
Of course yesterday's politics, is today's history...
The truth behind "why Wilhelm had to go" is there for all to see, and has been written about in great detail in the past.
It had little to do with WW1, or Wilhelm's "personality disorder" (lol).
As Tolkien states, long forgotten history became legend. Legend turned to myth. And after 100 years the reality of what happened passed out of all knowledge.
Re. why Wilhelm had to go, has simply been forgotten.
The reality of "what happened" is that soon after his ascent to power (around the time "leaning East" Bismarck took his hat), Wilhelm wanted to unite Europe.
In his own frustrated later words "with or without GB".
That can be read about in great detail and with sources in largely forgotton works: for example in the first few pages of THE ANGLO-GERMAN ALLIANCE NEGOTIATIONS: MISSED OPPORTUNITY OR MYTH by H.W. Koch (free to read online after registration at JSTOR) or several other free pdf theses on the topic.
Unfortunately most of these scholarly works mostly deal with how it turned out and not the initial intention by Berlin of such a potentially possible European alliance system with an Anglo-German Alliance at its core.
Only a few historians correctly point out how such an alliance system was never desired by key individual European players, especially in London, and therefore "wishful thinking" from the outset. See the "history" of the apparently "poor dissed London lords" who apparently "really really wanted to become Berlin's BFFs" (sic.), but Berlin had insiduous "world conquering dreams".
According to "Die Legende von der Verschmähten englischen Freundschaft 1898 to 1901" (1929) by Gerhard Ritter, the historian makes clear that it was London which never wanted such an alliance. The talks about a Eurpean alliance system did not "start" (as often stated) "in 1898", but much sooner. Bismarck had already sent the "feelers" much earlier, and Wilhelm intended to follow up on these (see the successful good start with the Helgoland-Zansibar Treaty as an act of good faith by both sides).
As it turned out "with GB" was not possible because London wanted "Splendid Isolation" as the elevated policy standpoint of a few influencial lords.
The "few" with veto powers would have used these powers to torpedo any attempt within the circle of London lords for any form of European unity, either "with or without GB".
To Quote: "Thirdly — but more contentiously — his veto of an Anglo-German alliance, as late as 1901, has been blamed, notably by Julian Amery in his biography of Joseph Chamberlain, as leading to the First World War and, by implication, to all the horrors which came after." (Amery 1969, p.158: edit for clarification, "third" in a list of the historian's list of key failures re. the Chamberlain Sr. years).
Just to clarify further. The same British lord who "oh-so honestly" set out try to create an Anglo-German Alliance in 1898 together with Lord Balfour, admitted to vetoing it if there was ever a chance of a version not to the lords' liking under discussion. Same as today, a few key figures can always veto any idea put forward, advocated on, or even decided on by majority concensus, and it did not matter how good such an idea (political proposition) is today, or was at the time.
It was GB which chose "against".
In 1896, Wilhelm II therefore "turned East" and personally handed the Russian Tzar a memorandum named "On the need to form a politico-merchantile union of European states against the USA".
In it, Wilhelm expressed his desire to turn Europe ("with or without GB", but still preferably including GB) into a united power which could stand up against the rapidly rising USA.
Hmmmmmmm....interesting.
"Against the USA" (sic.), and in 1918 Washington DC insisted on exactly this man to abdicate...
In 1918, Wilson representing the rapidly rising power USA, demanded that Wilhelm II should leave office in order for any peace talks to commence.
Of course, the "dividers" intent on "dividing" European power into manageable bits, sat in Washington DC. With their own entry into WW1, these strategists had got their "foot in the door" of European matters: their willing "little helpers" in London and Paris thereby signed the own death warrants for their own empires.
Because if you are a dragon (an imperialist power with an "empire"), don't cuddle up to a dragon slayer (a nation whose very foundation was anti-imperialism).
Wilhelm II had to go, because he wanted a united Europe, to mirror what was happening on the other side of the Atlantic.
It wasn't the "flamboyent Weltpolitic" or "nasty rhetoric" or "wanting to rule the world" (or any of the often overstated "historical details") which made Wilhelm unpopular with the other powers on the fringes of the European continent, but his desire to unite Europe in order to speak with a united voice against the rising USA. Germany's neighbors were unwilling to accept Berlin's "price tag" for such a "united Europe": more influence in the world (and a few more colonies) for Berlin.
Of course, everything has a "price tag".
Even the USA's "help" to "win WW1" had a price tag...
To add to the above.
Our history is often overburdened with judgements, rather than analyses.
A certain standpoint of "my government was better than your government"-attitude plays a large role.
The forms of governments which evolved (timeline) were a result of their geographical locations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bolivar2153 The advocacy for "total war", more "total" than one can imagine, counts for all...
The intended complete destruction of Germany as a "power", and removal of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe turned out to be a massive "shot in the own foot" for the West.
The 12 million Germans which were expelled from Eastern Europe, actually protected the West, and by extension, also the British Empire.
By their acquiescence to removing them as a "sphere of influence", London no longer had the leverage to enforce treaties, or protect own interests.
Really as simple as that...
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, still angry about Mers el Kebir and had slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
There was nothing left to "balance" with...
"In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good." Sun Tzu, The Art of War
That's just how it goes if the eternal "balancing" games on the continent by the alpha go south. Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe/the world herself.
An entirely and easily avoidable WW1, lead to a (sadly) unavoidable WW2 which although it was declared wisely, was implemented disastrously...
1
-
POWER. DOESN'T. CARE.
Maybe we the people should start thinking about a different strategy.
All around the world, millions of people have finally figured out they are trapped in a "divide and rule world", and it has been all about PROFITS and CONTROL over the people.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
DIVIDE AND RULE IN DOMESTIC POLITICS
Yes, on the domestic politics level of things, those within such a system who intend to govern/rule always walk a delicate tightrope of how to avoid the internal revolution: the only thing those with true power/true wealth really fear. They fear the "French revolution"-style anger of the streets.
In US domestic politics: "We have to defeat this divide-and-rule strategy, which goes back thousands of years. That’s how the few CONTROL the many. Yes, there are divisions over reproductive rights and gun control, but many policies that would transform this country get combined Left-Right support." (combined left-right support = bottom-up unity)
Four time US presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, Sun Magazine interview, 2019
Within these steered/moderated/managed divisions, which exist naturally, all those who intend to hang onto the achieved (positions of power/wealth), and then proceed to balance the divisions. They do so by setting these up against each other with feelings (-isms), laws, bills, rules, or policies, on multiple tiers, both private and government, or means (money, limited positions of power, limited influence, etc.) so that these natural divisions do not unite, and in effect exhaust themselves arguing.
Counterstrategies such as public shaming or calling out obvious political hypocrisy, doesn't work against the sociopaths and psychopaths who rule us (search for Dr Namie's research on bully tactics, the discovery that up to "21% of CEOs are psychopaths", or Polish psychologist Andrzej Lobaczewski research about Western pathocracies).
1
-
1
-
1
-
The big picture...
And of all the "big pictures", this is the biggest of all...
The worst choice of all was ignoring the reality of how Europe had been "set up" to protect the British Empire.
The British Empire was actually protected in Europe by uniquely "balancing powers" on the continent.
For more than 100 years, "balancing powers" on the continent, kept these powers opposing each other, unable to divert military or economic resources to affront the status of the British Empire as the nr.1 in the world...
According to the logic of this policy, completely ruining a power on the continent, would lead to an imbalance, which could then be directed at the British Empire...
Therefore, totally destroying Germany was neither wise nor in GB 's interests.
Concerning WW2.
Firstly, a 100% collapse of Germany as a power...was a dream condition for communism (Moscow) and US corporatism (Washington D.C.).
After WW2, there was no strong Central Europe to "balance out" the rise of communism (Moscow).
France broken, pissed off by Mers el Kebir and slipped under Washington's wings...
Germany = alles kaputt
Eastern Europe = overrun by the commies...
GB was no longer the boss.
Nothing left to "balance" with...
Sorreee. That's just how it goes if your eternal "balancing" games on the continent go south...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
Washington got tired of bailing GB out, and decided to become the "balancer of powers" in Europe herself.
And down went the British Empire too...
1
-
1
-
Feb 17, 2024 — 'If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu,' says US Secretary of State Blinken...
Remember the names of all their "lunches."
Remember all their victims.
As millions of individuals, maybe we should start thinking about a different strategy. All around the world, millions of others like Aaron Bushell have finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year old imperialist war in Eastern Europe and the ME, but they are not as connected or organized like the outside meddlers have been for 100 years. Right from the start of this conflict 100 years ago, the meddlers' strategy has been "divide and rule", and it has been all about OIL and outside Western CONTROL over strategic locations on the map.
Counter strategy to "divide and rule": Start pulling the rug from underneath the feet of these eternal meddlers...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve much by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve much by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve much by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve much by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve much by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands".
Do not delay. Start today. 👍👋
1
-
Churchill was a terrible strategists.
February 1942 = Area Bombing campaign aimed at direct attacks on city centers, wasting away the financial resources of Empire. Between a third and half of the entire British war effort was directed at creating rubble in German cities, and contributed almost nothing to the overall effect of winning (of course, a simple reference to WW1 production figures would have revealed that it was the lack of raw materials which limited German industrial production).
A year later, and the ridiculous "soft underbelly" strategy had Stalin in stitches. Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created *facts*. The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...
1
-
A media noteworthy effort. For millions of others who finally figured out they are on the wrong side of a 100-year long imperialist war in the ME, which has been all about OIL and CONTROL over strategic locations right from the start, there is no need for such drastic measures.
Start pulling the rug from underneath their feet...
Boycott: Much simpler than trying to remember the long loooong lists of what not to buy, and for whatever specific reasons, is to try and limit what one actually does buy: buy no-name brands from small companies (addresses usually on the labels), buy local foods (farmers markets), buy locally produced or handmade items, otherwise go slightly "over-regional," or buy fair trade wherever possible.
It is not a perfect strategy, but don't get sidelined by the whiners/finger pointers who will invariably ALWAYS show up like clockwork, trying to ridicule or nag with their dumb "...duh but your using a smartphone, but your using oil toooo"-gotcha style distractions. It is not MEANT to be "perfect"...
Methodology: JDI and make it a longterm lifestyle, not just a short-term knee-jerk "trend," because of some or other upsetting event in the news. Just boycott ALL corporations, as far as personally convenient and possible, and always remember that even if only 75% of all the people on the planet only get it right about 75% of the time, on roughly 75% of everything they buy, it will finally make a massive difference for all the causes you also value. Want to bring the boys home? Do you wish to limit military actions to becoming multinational, following the principles of international law only, and independent of any corporate "interests." Do you wish to contribute to end western imperialist actions and meddling all over the world? You wish to contribute a small share to forcing Israel into a negotiated peace process? Do you wish to give small companies a better chance in the dog-eat-dog capitalist world in your country?
Join BDS, because the international cross-border politically influencial rich and powerfull only REALLY start caring when their pockets start hurting.
Regardless of where you live, or how much money you have, just remember this:
- You are not going to achieve change by voting in elections.
- You are not going to achieve change by posting on social media.
- You are not going to achieve change by debating on any plattform, real or virtual.
- You are not going to achieve change by making use your "freedom of speech" in any way.
- You are not going to achieve change by protesting in any possible way which will politically make a difference.
Here is what you can do, easily:
1) Read Smedley-Butler/War is a Racket, a very short book (should be possible in a few hours)
2) realize that after around a 100 years, NOTHING has changed
3) start unravelling the connections between big business and Washington DC, by boycotting "big brands". 👍👋
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If one lives in a political system that considers human beings as "problems" due to where they live or what they are, then we have signed up for the wrong system, proposing the wrong solutions, by "dividing" human beings based on the categorization of these with "rulings". These systems have played no or little role in determining such divisions, which are in essence a way of creating advantages for such "dividers". First and foremost, the "dividers" wish to gain from the "division," as macro-analyses quickly discover. They once became "rich systems", and intend to remain "rich systems" by dividing and/or exploiting all others, and then simply claim to be superior because they are "richer" (circular reasoning).
When you divide other people without asking them, for example by simply drawing lines on the map, your systems lay the foundation for everything following in that wake (causality). Lies and deceit are an integral part of a divide-and-rule world. Power players are the "managers" and "moderators" of lies and division in a divide-and-rule world. If you disagree, then have a look at the world around you: most people already "get it" that there is something fundamentally wrong with our planet, but can't figure it out due to all the finger pointing. That leaves the active "dividers" laughing all the way to the bank, as figure of speech. The "issues" are NOT where the finger-pointers point. The issue is the system itself, the divide-and-rule setup of the entire planet.
Conclusion.
When you do that, "divide and rule" as THE state policy, your own systems are the problem.
NOT those being "divided" with top down "rulings".
These systems then often systemically REact to the divide-and-rule setup of the planet, if they've gathered the necessary POWER to do so.
A confusion of CAUSE and EFFECT.
The problem with US/European imperialism, "starts" in every single brain.
The following essay will attempt to explain why the divide-and-rule world is a combination of top-down rule, with bottom up indifference, ignorance, and complacency.
"We the people" aid in enabling our own divisions.
The core issue is the way the brain works, in most people, as an evolutionary way to solve problems.
We can start with a micro-level example, just to explain this phenomena.
Imagine the following scenario: You've got a big tea party coming up at 16.00, and you need your only good table cloth. However, it is soiled, and you had forgotten to wash it. There is also massive piles of laundry all over the place, so you also quickly want to wash these in order to bring it to the rooftop, out of sight of the coming guests. You get things started, only to realize your washing machine is broken. You try to phone a repair service, but none have time until the next week. You start cursing because you've ignored the grinding and squeaking noises coming from the machine for two months now. Now human beings have two ways to deal with this: go into "panic mode" and solve nothing and cause embarrassment to themself when the guests arrive, or start implementing "compartmentalization." The BIG PROBLEM is divided into several smaller problems, to deal with one at a time. So, go out to the store and 1) buy a nice new table cloth. First issue solved. Then, 2) try to get a repair service and simply take the first available appointment. Then 3) bundle up the dirty laundry lying all over the house, put it into bags, and store them in your basement until the repair service can come.
BIG problem solved, by "dividing" BIG problems into "small problems".
We "divide" the BIG PROBLEM with our own "rulings" and thereby solve the problem.
Divide-and-rule.
That is how the brain works, and is pre-programmed for logic problem-solving, and is at the core of human co-operation as systems too.
Why is this problematic when dealing with human systems?
Because we can see the merits of such an approach, when "dealing with" inanimate problems like inappropriate timing for a broken washing machine. However, if we are not careful, our brain starts "seeing" other human beings as inanimate entities and "problems" which need to be "solved" top-down by way of our own political systems we had signed up for. Mostly, in the overwhelming number of cases, it is simply that system we are born into. Very few can break free of the systems they were born into, for various reasons.
The overwhelming number of human beings anywhere on the planet are completely unaware of the "groaning/squeaking" issues in these systems of human cooperation (politics), specifically if things are running sort of OK-ish, accompanied by a "little groaning/squeaking" but the job is being done. When suddenly faced with a BIG PROBLEM however, because of ignoring long-standing problems and issues, most people in their ingroups do NOT think for themselves, because just like with the "broken washing machine" they lack the specific skills to cope, and deal with it, and have to start trusting the opinions and analyses of other human beings.
Most people, esp. those living in the USA/collective West & friends, usually the richest systems on the planet, are easily deceived into thinking along following lines: "These global problems need to be solved by OUR (ingroup) systems, because only OUR (ingroup) systems are superior and have seen the light. The OTHERS (outgroups) are the dark side, because they create problems."
In almost every case, fallacies in reasoning and logical errors come into play, based on the cognitive biases inherent in all human beings. Human beings start creating ingroups and the entity with the biggest competitive advantage will start "ruling" over those who failed to create an equilibrium BEFORE the imbalance started becoming problematic.
AT THE CORE:
Divide-and-rule creates its own causal effects, when the divided resist, and create rebel alliances.
1
-
1
-
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the default rival/enemy.
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy.
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The question posed to Asians (mainly Chinese and Indians/citizens within these borders) remains the same as during the era of imperialism.
The obfuscators and dividers will use the same techniques in reasoning as they use in politics: they will "hop around" on criteria, causing dissention in debates on the micro level (society), in the same way the power players "hop around" on entire countries/governments/capital cities/key politicians in geopolitics on the macro level...
The technique of "divide and rule"...
Hop over here, hop over there, whatever standpoint brings the own short-term advantage, because THE POWER has the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of not having to suffer consequences from it's own actions.
The question posed to all Asians remains.
Whether they can see that they are in the same positions they were in 200 and 300 years ago.
The dividers come with "promises" which they mostly don't intend keeping, or offer "treaties" (in which these dividers themselves hold the geographical advantage of distance), make all kinds of excuses why the dividers don't keep their promises, or why the dividers don't suffer the same percentage of harmfull effects in times of crisis/war as the "chosen ones". These promises are very enticing to power players, and offer the prospect of glory and achievement to the side the promises are made to...
Anthony Blinken making some Indians FEEL***(see footnote) very proud with repeated offers of NATO membership, just like previous US admins made such promises to the Ukriane, which no doubt made many Ukrainians FEEL very proud, and then the dividers with the geographical advantage, subsequently citing all kinds of "difficulties" why such "pwomises" then cannot be effected in a short timespan.
Meanwhile, exposing the "Ukraine"/proxy to extreme danger as the feet were dragged and dragged and dragged...
Of course, in the game called divide and rule, it is not the fact THAT it is a ridiculous offer, in view of recent events in the Ukraine exposing the danger of such folly, but rather the fact THAT such an offer is repeated. The fact THAT the offer is on the table, already causes mistrust/dissention amongst ASIAN neighbors.
Of course, if India refuses, the divider (of Asia), Washington DC can simply go to China and "promise Taiwan" to Beijing (signed away) in return for a deal, to surround Russia. The potential for "divide and rule" rests on the side with the geographical advantage, as long as the targets for division do not unite, specifically with a comprehensive Asian security agreement.
The question to Asians remains the same.
What are they going to do to create a SINGLE HEGEMONY (alliance) in East Asia, in order to speak with a united voice, against the POWER of division.
BRICS is not enough.
Any other deal or treaty, or even the "UN's" laws and the "rules based order" cannot stand up to the POWER of divide and rule.
It needs a comprehensive security agreement for all of those in the FRACTURE ZONE 4 (stretching from North Pole, via Japan, Taiwan, through Thailand, the Indian subcontinent, towards the Middle East).
If no comprehensive security agreement is achieved, mutually beneficial for all, then simply wait for history to return ("rhyme")...
Or are Indian leaders like... first they came for Russia, but I did not care because I was not Russian. Then they came for China, but I did not care because I was not Chinese, and even saw an advantage for myself (economy) if China got "carved up" and weakened...
Indian leaders: It'll be great, if WE can CONTROL the WATER flowing into China, from Tibet...such tempting "offers" and promises...
"Around 1900" repeating for Tibet.
Finally though, if everything is burning, divided, in quagmire of revolution and war, and Asia the "new Middle East" (as unfolded after the 1882 British invasion, followed up closely by "Sir Lawrance the divider ofArabs"), finger pointing, and harsh language in the neighboring state, then who will speak up for India when the dividers come for you?
DESIRABLE OUTCOME in any divide and rule system: The dividers will subsequently have the "upper hand/higher ground" (leverage) of POWER for all future negotiations with the resulting "statelets".
The secret towards more Indian "power" lies in the continued "power" of its neighbors, not these neighbors' weakness.
* The appeal to emotion
1
-
Even in hindsight, it was not a mistake.
Unfortunately, the way the world had been set up post-WW1, there was no alternative to appeasing Hitler.
And even those relying on "Churchill" (aka "the hardliner") for their alternative history, must admit reality.
If in power, Churchill would have done the same as Chamberlain, because (reality) the British Prime Minister doesn't have the authority to declare war out of the blue, and that would have depended on how the ministers would have debated it out...
The second "reality" was that in 1938, the Legion Condor was in Spain, next to Gibraltar (15,000 well-trained and combat ready soldiers with tanks and air support).
Also, an Italian dictator keen on "Mare Nostrum" and a Spain which would have liked Gibraltar back....hmmm....a rather unfortunate combination of "reality" concentrated in one area vital to the British Empire.
Churchill of course, was a naval strategist.
1) Would Churchill (a navy guy) have risked losing Gibraltar to "protect little nations"?
2) What would the lords in London have thought about "protecting little nations"?
3) And even if they did value "little nations" enough to declare war on their behalf, what would have been the first military/strategic priority had it come to war in 1938?
Especially the last one being not a difficult question to answer...
1
-
To add to the above, IMO, the 'Czech fortress' is a myth.
Firstly, most historians which proclaim this, assume that if there had been a German invasion in 1938 (after French and British guarantees), that the German Army would have simply dashed headlong into the Czech border defenses. However, later events proved that the Germans stuck strictly to the Blitzkrieg doctrine, which was to strike at the weakest point, not the strongest.
Most likely, Hitler would have first instigated a political preparation, as he did in 1940/41 in the Balkans. He would have used the squabbles and greed of the local heads of states, to divide, and then invade. He would have offered independence to Slovak nationalists (like happened with Tiso in 1939), offered tidbits of Czechoslovakia to Poland and Hungary (the large populations would have been the pretexts) -- and he would certainly NOT have invaded from Germany, but from the newly annexed Austria, pushing the pincers through (now) independent Slovakia.
In the meantime, the LW would have attacked almost unopposed since the Czechs had ignored building a strong air force, same as almost everywhere else in Europe.
I can make my alternative history scenario with a certain measure of certainty, since exactly the same happened in 1941 in the Balkans. Yugoslavia was another 'failed state' created on the 'drawing board' at Versailles, and likewise an artificial entity which did not represent the wishes of a large portion of the population.
Strangely enough, it was ideal for defense -- a tough resilient population and mountainous landscape, yet it effectively collapsed in 11 days. Part of the reason being that large numbers of Croats, Slovenians, and others, did not feel like 'fighting for Belgrad'.
The same would most likely have happened if the Germans had invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938.
What would have been the chances that the soldiers representing the 3,5 million Germans, 700,000 Hungarians, 2,3 Million Slovaks and around 200,000 Ukrainians, would have fought 'for Prague'?
IMO, it would have been over in days, and the world would have been worse off.
The reason historians overestimate the strength of Czechoslovakia is to distract from the real mistakes, which happened at the end of WW1. Versailles, Trianon, and St. Germaine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, a "war dumbo".
Apparently the London lords weren't smart enough to follow a policy they themselves had devised and imposed on Europe, to protect their "Empire".
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In February 1942, the decision was taken to make the German people (not the Nazi Government or military) "the enemy".
By destoying Central Europe, they destroyed their own "scale" which they intended to "hop onto" in either war or peace, this side now, the other side another time...
After the war there was nothing left to play "balancing games" with anymore.
They had destroyed "the scale" which protected their own Empire.
After the war, this weakness was then soon exploited by their "WW2 best fwiends", who would armwrestle the British Empire into the ground with a series of well-aimed but devestating own political/economic policies.
The British Empire reminds me of that cartoon of the dumb lumberjack sawing off the branch he is sitting on.
And today?
Still the kids are shouting: Here, a bigger saw..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
Imperialists, and imperialist apologists always think the entire world hates them.
In reality, it is they themselves who have kickstarted every single problem we face today, incl. the ME.
Because the prevailing current displeasure with "Islam" is an effect of the actions of our leaders, with their past geopolitical policies.
Cause: Imperialism.
Effect: Opposition to imperialism.
Fun fact? A hundred years ago, around the 1900s or even later, Westerners did not hate/fear/dispise the Islamic religion, or the peoples who lived in the Levant/Middle East.
What changed after that?
Did this region, geopolitically abbreviated as the MENA region (Middle East/North Africa) start meddling in our US/collective West affairs? Or was it our governments, in conjunction with interest groups, in other words our western empires which entered and started meddling in their affairs?
It isn't difficult to grasp.
We (USA/collective West) must get out of their world.
1
-
Stealing, politically disenfranchising native populations, arm-wrestling with the meek, wars on minor nations, invading, meddling, economic exploitation, slavery, extortion of poorer regions, favoritism, divide and rule...
Did I mention stealing?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@c00rey74 Well, then we agree on a few things.
Yes, I also hope China will soon join the free world with modern concepts like freedom, liberty and self-determination. I wouldn't hold my breath though. History has shown that change doesnt come easy, and it often needs the "generational change over".
Unless there is a war (which I doubt in the nuclear age) with a rapid and massive change, there is normally a gradual change over the course on a century or more.
Will we see this?
Probably not, and we'll probably be dead or extremely old before China gets there.
Just don't forget.
If you were a kid in London in 1910, you'd probably have thought that the British Empire would last forever. You'd see the battleships and all those great weapons...
That same kid witnessed the end of the British Empire in the 1960s.
It was constant war, the inability to adapt to changing times (aka conservatism) and fiscally irresponsible behaviour (massive debt) which caused the end.
That is also the way the USA will go down. Maybe not in 20 years. Maybe not even in 50 years time. But if your leaders don't change a few things, you will go down the same way.
China likes Trump BTW.
There would be nothing they'd like better than having a rival spending itself into oblivion resulting in fiscal implosion, same as the British Empire.
1
-
1
-
Back in the 1990s Tel Aviv was sneakily trying to introduce Apartheid, at the same time South Africa was busy ending it under international pressure. Of course, Israel was (according to imperialist logic) "doing nothing wrong"...
At the time the world was applauding South Africa as it ended Apartheid, and simultaneously the world was applauding Israel's attempt at introducing Apartheid, branding it as just "trying to create peace."
Note, whilst singling out the Palestinians/Arafat as being "unreasonable" and "rejecting the Israeli olive leaf of peace...blah, blah..." as the accepted narrative of the Mainstream Media.
Israel never intended for Palestinians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, "We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [edit: the historical examples being the "Apartheid dependencies," of the "Bantustan"] ... and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines ... The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term ... Jerusalem (would be) united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty ... will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev. We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth."
All the questionable clauses, eluding reality by use of the typical vague political doublespeak, have been highlighted.
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control. What that would have meant, we see today. Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city. Notice how Rabin, commonly held as a dove in politics, never used the term "full sovereign state" when he referred to this "Palestine", but the term "less than a state." Did you spot the use of [Israel's] "natural growth"? Critical question... Where to? Where would Israelis/Zionists "naturally grow" to, if there were equal neighbours, as a balanced power, which could actually stop any such Zionist settler "growth". The Jordan Valley, extends BOTH sides of the Jordan River. Now, I'm sure that was just another slip-up too, of people who don't understand simple geography. Whatever. It is fairly clear what they wanted, and there are historical examples for this: the "pool of cheap labor" within the own borders, as the concept of the "Bantustan" was for the RSA, given a little bit of "independence" to manage some of the own affairs, but de facto/de jure powerless to stop the CONTROLLING power, intended to be Jerusalem, as Jweish capital city with the right to introduce permit laws, etc. It is literally what RSA did with their "Bantustans". Back then the people could not be fooled. They saw through the deceit, and rightfully called it out for what it was: just another Apartheid ploy to avoid the rise of political equals.
Sad reality? Today masses of fools are being mislead into praising Israel's attempted implementation of Apartheid as an attempt at peace, while at the same time denouncing a similar scheme actually implemented by the RSA in stages after WW2, as being bigoted/racist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hassanakabrownfabiopiker4914 There is this amazing little thingy called "Google".
This is how it works...
1) open browser
2) search "Google"
3) type "Nixon declares war on drugs"
4) wow....answer...
This for example:
" The war on drugs is a largely unsuccessful campaign,[6] led by the U.S. federal government, of drug prohibition, military aid, and military intervention, with the aim being the reduction of the illegal drug trade in the United States.[7][8][9][10] The initiative includes a set of drug policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs that the participating governments and the UN have made illegal. The term was popularized by the media shortly after a press conference given on June 18, 1971, by President Richard Nixon—the day after publication of a special message from President Nixon to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control—during which he declared drug abuse "public enemy number one". That message to the Congress included text about devoting more federal resources to the "prevention of new addicts, and the rehabilitation of those who are addicted", but that part did not receive the same public attention as the term "war on drugs".[11][12][13]
However, two years prior to this, Nixon had formally declared a "war on drugs" that would be directed toward eradication, interdiction, and incarceration.
Today, the Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates for an end to the War on Drugs, estimates that the United States spends $51 billion annually on these initiatives.
MONEY THAT SEEMS TO BE MISSING IN YOUR EDUCATION
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's divide-and-rule.
At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule.
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others...
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favouritism.
"Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Africa, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the behavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies:
- the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly)
- the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling"
- the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies"
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD"
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact. It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of. What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of those in search of profit and in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. For the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact that it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA has lived beyond its means for more than 50 years. Now it's all coming to a head.
After 1945 the US government and 1%-ters set out to gobble up as much of the world's resources for themselves if not direct control then indirectly via implementation of the dollar hegemony.
Money in the form of printed fiat currency (post-1913) of course, is a means to exercise CONTROL, and to funnel the resources of the world in ONE direction: upwards, towards the hegemon issuing the fiat currency as a means to steer the resources.
That is the reality on ALL tiers, even within the own borders, not only International Relations. Divide and rule implemented downwards, onto their own people, and outwards, onto the entire planet.
This is how limited factor (resources) can be CONTROLLED by printing a potentially unlimited factor (money), and affording this unlimited factor to FAVORITES (divide and rule).
Observation reveals that it is not "hard work" which determines how the resources are divided (WHO you are), but a pre-selected standing (WHAT you are). Americans, are slowly waking up to this reality, as we speak, because it is not 1950, or 1970, or 1990 anymore.
The USA came out "on top" after 1945 because of a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, not because of better leaders, a better government, or anything else.
A geographical advantage meant the ability to employ division as tool, more successfully than other systems: which is the employment of the divide an rule technique.
No, the US government was not "good," unlike its people, but rather used geographical advantages to be more slimy than everybody else. Sorry, if reality triggers anybody. Sorry, but at least 50-90% of Americans are NOT privileged enough to benefit from the "50%" of resources the empire vacuums up, claiming it as its justified "right" to CONTROL.
Whatever.
You'll soon find out.
Then, from the position of the "top of the hill" (shiny house) point at other systems, and via the use of false argumentation, claim that all other systems are bad/evil, want to rule the world or whatever: it doesn't really matter because the entire rotten own system is filled the brim with every imaginable ideologue, idealist, nutcase, cutthroat, and everything else. These will soon simmer and percolate to the top of the froth, as and the true reality of human nature will be revealed soon, when the entire card house of lies implodes, and the USA can no longer CONTROL "50%" of the world's resources.
footnote
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population*...Our real task in the coming period is to develop a pattern , of relationships that allow us to maintain this position of inequality."
And that's what these internationalist/globalist gentlemen did in the past, and still do today.
1
-
So the London lords set off to set Europe up for failure...TWICE.
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends" to temporarily use and abuse, not lasting alliances.
The own historical policy standpoint resulted in the eternal motivation to set continental powers up against each other, in a bid to "sit on the fence and eat popcorn" when the shtf...
In case of differences? Pick the side against the strongest power.
In case of war? Oppose the power (alliance) most likely to win.
That is how the lords "played".
Under a thin veneer of "civility" and protected by an army of apologists.
After WW1 (Versailles, St. Germaine, etc.) the lords set off on the same path: divide and rule.
Set up Hungarians against Czechs, set up Austrians against Czechs, set up the Poles against the Russians and Germans (see Limitrophe States). Set up everybody against everybody else.
Create just enough "peace" for a short-term advantage. Just enough dissatisfaction to cause eternal strife...divide and rule.
Bring in a few others to gather around the round table (Paris), so you can pass the buck around if things go predictably wrong. When things go wrong: blame everybody else...
Drawing lines on the map, divide and rule.
Imposing on many millions, and give power to a few betas. Divide and rule...
Seperating families. Divide and rule.
Seperating companies from their markets. Divide and rule...
Taking from some without asking. Giving to others, without consent.
These are the "tools" of "divide and rule".
Never a "price tag" for own actions.
Right?
WRONG
Brits: "The Woyal Navy will pwotect us and our Empire forever and ever..."
Right?
WRONG
To avoid the dreary hassle of working to achieve a long-term stable Europe, the lords set of to look for "best fwiends" elsewhere...
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals....
Right?
WRONG
After 1895, London snuggled up to the rising power USA, thinking such action would bring further easy victories, an expansion of own sphere of influence, while protect their Empire: Meanwhile, dividing their neighbors on the continent as a policy standpoint.
What could possibly go wrong?
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
The "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "special relationship BFFs" had stolen all their most profitable markets.
No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no "Empire".
US President Adams said there are two ways to enslave a people: one is with invasion, the other way through debt.
They thought their American Century "best fwiends" would help out for free...TWICE.
Right?
WRONG...
A minor detail the "oh so honest" lords forgot about, finally had an effect: "Empires" don't have "friends".
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring": Good ol' USA didn't have to invade GB in order to succeed London as the "ruler of the world".
And after the war ended?
They became the American Century's involuntary "little helpers", when Truman declared that the Brit's "new temporary divide-and-rule best fwiends" (the commies in Moscow) were now suddenly the "new default enemy" (Truman Doctrine, 1946). Did Washington DC ask the London lords desperately selling everything they could get their hands on, incl. high-tech jet technology, in an effort to save the Empire if this was agreeable? ROTFL
Of course not. Washington DC needed a junior partner, not an equal...
So Brits lost their Empire fighting their "pwevious tempowawy best fwiends the commies", now the "new enemy" as declared by Washington DC.
The history of the British Empire: Hop over here for a temporary advantage one time, then hop over there for a temporary advantage another time. Hop, hop, hop...into extinction. In 1945, there was nobody left to "hop onto".
That's what happens if one has leaders that make the strongest continental power "the enemy" as a default setting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That is what the Pentagon/Washington DC wants you to believe.
It's a smokescreen based on biases, or age-old prejudice. US leaders, creating the "little Benjamins ...he, he, he"-narrative style deception, want the world to believe that Washington DC does not have agency, but are lead by a corrupt few money elite who do the bidding of whoever pays them. Then, people make the quick connection that "it's the jwes again."
In reality as we know, most US leaders make their excessive wealths from eternal war, stocks and shares, links to corporations, , and other indirect benefits of "playing Roman Empire," all over the world, not ONLY in the ME.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jthrtm6030 Why was was Washington DC okay with Stalin taking over hegemony over Eastern Europe? (including a divided Germany)
Because Washington DC sent US soldiers to fight for The American Century, not the British Century.
Simple.
After WW2, the American Century "best friends" refused to give London nukes to stand up to the commies, and reclaim Empire's Balance of Power on the continent.
(aka "The Percentages Agreement)
Can you bridge the gap between
1) a European "Balance of Power" dictated by London at Versailles, which protected the British Empire and favored British interests, and
2) a post-1945 Global "Balance of Power" determined by Washington, and which favored Washington's interests?
Washington DC silently followed the principle of "America first", even if not propagating this aloud...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
If London or Paris thought there'd be "another Versailles" after WW2, with the British and French empires "drawing lines on the map" and "carving up power" to protect their own interests, they were to be disappointed...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
The attempt by Churchill to use the USA to throw Stalin out of Eastern Europe, and remain "the balancer" of power, too transparent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
There would be no US support to start Unthinkable.
The "poor Poles have to be liberated"-argument, wasn't swinging...
After being dragged into another European (World) War, Washington decided to become the "balancer of powers" herself, and Europe was divided in "East" and "West"...
With a simple 'no' to Unthinkable, Washington DC had taken over the role of nr.1 in the the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1